Oklahoma forces women to have vaginal ultrasound before abortion by Niki2

Oh dear, don't even get me started, the endless explosion of rage which would result right now would be thermonuclear.

A member of my family is on the verge of suicide over this kinda shit, and having lost one already to that goddamned Gardasil, watching helplessly as the pricks who do this shit just shrug off the casualties....

So I guess if she does succeed in offing herself cause they left her no other fucking option, kept her ignorant under false pretenses, used her age to block any access to birth control outside of downright theft, and now wanna block the only thing left to her...

I guess that's a two-for-one sale to the evil fuckers, right ?

Call me a hypocrite if you will, but putting girls in that position is a greater evil, and were one of them girls to cap a couple of these fuckers in retaliation...
Well, I wouldn't encourage or support it.

But I wouldn't say one fuckin word against it, neither.

It's really, really inadviseable to provoke me right now, what with this and the other thing all grinding my nerves at once.

Respect for human life my ass, what value is a life that is naught but suffering, bereft of quality, and predoomed to failure by the society who inflicted it's care upon unwilling others.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:05 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Wouldn't that, in every sense of the word, be a "death panel"? If you're in need of an abortion, you MUST go before this doctor and have electronic "tracking devices" placed inside your body, and you have no right to refuse, at least not if you want to terminate a pregnancy.

Of course, we can also argue that an unborn fetus has no constitutional rights under the law, and is due no equal protections, because those rights are only for CITIZENS, and until you're natural-born here, you're not a citizen.

It's fun when you twist their logic back on them. I do it just to see the looks on their faces.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:15 AM

WHOZIT

I'm pro-choice, but I agree with you guys, just hurry up and kill it

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:21 AM

Wat disturbs me the most is that doctors can willfully and arbitrarily withold medical information about the health of the fetus.

Um... what?? Why are people having those exams? To see if everything is alright! Because it is their right to know! Not the doctor's right to know and keep secret.

That's... motherfucking wrong. Not only because it is solely aimed at denying a woman's right to choose, but also because it begs a few more disturbing questions.

1) What about in-utero intervention that can be done to help and protect a fetus with complications? Are they going to deny information about that, too?

2) What about the right of the parents to prepare for their special needs child? As in, learn about those special needs?

This above all is making me very scared for the people of Oklahoma.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:26 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I'm sure things will be better now that government will have a hand in your healthcare. (Sarcasm intended)

Might want to start rethinking that love of ObamaCare...

I keep saying this, over and over again... everytime you get all happy about a bill or a law... just imagine if its the "other side" enforcing it.

This has been a Wulf thought for the day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:30 AM

MINCINGBEAST

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

I keep saying this, over and over again... everytime you get all happy about a bill or a law... just imagine if its the "other side" enforcing it.

This has been a Wulf thought for the day.

Well put, you rotten bastard. Well put. I only get happy about laws when those i agree with have the power to enforce them (i.e: control of the executive branch).

Still, I have no idea what this well-put observation has to do with ninja-style attempts to undermine established law, and punish sinful women for getting knocked up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:43 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Well, hmmm..

The next (or the next ect) administration believes that these tactics should be enforced across the country.

With the power of ObamaCare, they can! Not only that, but they will also have a listing of every woman who has ever had an abortion..

*sigh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:46 AM

MAL4PREZ

Can of worms, Niki. Big can of worms.

I have to vote like Frem. I can't talk about this much because I'm too pissed.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:27 PM

TRAVELER

This is what I call big government or more like "Big Brother". It seems that Republicans have to decide what their agenda is.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I'm sure things will be better now that government will have a hand in your healthcare. (Sarcasm intended)

Might want to start rethinking that love of ObamaCare...

I keep saying this, over and over again... everytime you get all happy about a bill or a law... just imagine if its the "other side" enforcing it.

This has been a Wulf thought for the day.

Funny that you'd conflate a Republican bill in Oklahoma with ObamaCare.

And when you start in with your "just imagine if it's the 'other side'" schtick, just imagine what happens when some future administration decides it's a good idea for EVERYONE to have to keep all their papers in order and on their person at all times, or go directly to jail.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:43 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I'm sure things will be better now that government will have a hand in your healthcare. (Sarcasm intended)

Might want to start rethinking that love of ObamaCare...

I keep saying this, over and over again... everytime you get all happy about a bill or a law... just imagine if its the "other side" enforcing it.

This has been a Wulf thought for the day.

Funny that you'd conflate a Republican bill in Oklahoma with ObamaCare.

And when you start in with your "just imagine if it's the 'other side'" schtick, just imagine what happens when some future administration decides it's a good idea for EVERYONE to have to keep all their papers in order and on their person at all times, or go directly to jail.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

As long as it doesn't come from a librul, I'm sure Wulfie would love that mandate.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:47 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Shocking Niki - imagine forcing a rape victim (or anyone one else for that matter) to have a vaginal ultrasound.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:47 PM

Oh, I'll talk about it, and I damn well mean to, just that I am all but spitting tacks at the moment infuriated by Federale and SS stormtroopers stepping on my turf with their COINTELPRO bullshit - inflicting it on the neighborhood I have spent the last year and more protecting not only from the chaos and destruction of our slow motion implosion, but also from the abuses and predations of the local police force...

And I have a few local politically-involved Fosters looking to have their "toys" back, which ain't gonna bloody happen even if they *can* involve the machinery of the state to retrieve them, while that same machinery conveniently ignores the abuses they've been subjected to...

And then there's the family issue...

I swear, we shove them into this world onto unwilling and ignorant parents, too early, and expect those unprepared kids to raise kids - who wind up resenting their own children and repeating the whole fucking cycle, keeping them in ignorance, telling them not to have feelings, not to have normal human desires, demanding they suppress them, never discussing it with them - and so they have no idea what to do, no idea what they're doing, AND little clue of any way of handling it when those hormones and desires creep up on them, so totally unprepared it bites them on the ass, as if this were not inevitable...

And THEN blame them for not using birth control they were not whatever informed even existed save by their own illegal research, which they would have had no access to other than outright theft because their age and lack of parental support and guidance ensures they didn't have any TO use, oh good going that, and then when the all but inevitable results of that come to fruition...

We blame THEM for the ignorance WE kept them in, we blame THEM for not having access when WE blocked it - and then when we're done screaming and abusing, then block them from even the last desperate measure, forcing them to repeat the entire goddamn cycle cause we cannot admit fault, cannot admit that us adults are RESPONSIBLE for it because WE FAILED IN OUR DUTY to educate, nurture and support them, in our arrogance considering our own egos, our control, our precious dignity and squeamishness more important, afraid to discuss anything with kids cause they might dare to disagree with us, afraid they might call us out on our abuses and mistreatment of them, afraid to acknowledge them as human cause then we would have to face what we have done, that it is our own fault, and we have only ourselves to blame for this dystopic nightmare world and society we're kicking them out into, unprepared and unaware because we blocked them in, kept them ignorant, crippled their survival skills so that they would never be used against us in retaliation for our efforts to control what cannot BE controlled...

Even lacking pregnancy, casting children out into the world without survival skills dooms them, no knowledge of finance, budget, how to run a household, clueless of even the most basic first aid, unable to operate a vehicle of any kind, not even knowing HOW to find lodging, no job skills cause allowing them to work means letting them out of your direct control, no job experience...

And then we blame them - and wonder why they hate us so when they've got every fucking right in the universe to wish all of us dead.

One person, no matter how active, no matter how effective, and no matter how passionately driven, cannot undo the ignorance, the arrogance, the malice, of an entire society - no matter how hard he tries, and it is that fact that has me spitting fire and fury right now because of having to watch the chain continue itself, all but helpless, knowing that ANY action I take, in any direction, is going to harm or destroy *someone* very badly, and shatter the few remaining strands of a family that is all but tattered rags and tenous threads as it is.

And to watch politicians codify into law this pattern, this cycle of abuse that is destroying us all, casting further doubt on a system that's coming apart at the seams when those straining under it's malice can barely suspend disbelief already, when the pressure vents are all screaming overload as it is a real nightmare to me, cause I feel the same way I did back in June 2001, howling in the wind, over and over again, and just as quickly dismissed about the pattern emerging, as three months later all hell came together and I couldn't even watch as the end result of years of unheeded warnings came back to slap us in the face, as warnings against what was to come were drowned in the outrage of damn fools who only did not see it coming cause they blinded themselves rather than admit responsibility...

And now, looking into the hard, hating eyes of our children, and knowing our doom is upon us, and exactly where it's going to come from.

And then I hear about some bullshit like this...

Rage ?
You have no idea, no clue whatever of the very depths of my Fury at these fools, laughing in the faces of a collective that grows ever smarter, ever more desperate, with every passing year, as nature bends her will upon us in a frenetic effort to save us from ourselves.

And I look down the road and this is the future I see for us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:43 PM

Oklahoma is pretty bullshit on healthcare in general. You should hear about their denials for disability claims.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:55 PM

America loves a winner!

I'm inclined to favor banning, or greatly limiting, all abortions after the 1st trimester.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm inclined to favor banning, or greatly limiting, all abortions after the 1st trimester.

Not in favor of free markets, eh? Shouldn't the market decide?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm inclined to favor banning, or greatly limiting, all abortions after the 1st trimester.

...Even in the event of rape, incest, or health concerns for the mother?

I mean, I don't like abortions (who does?), but I don't understand punishing someone further when they're a victim.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:30 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm inclined to favor banning, or greatly limiting, all abortions after the 1st trimester.

Not in favor of free markets, eh? Shouldn't the market decide?

'

Your post is nonsensical. It does not apply. Attempted humor on your part ?

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:59 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm inclined to favor banning, or greatly limiting, all abortions after the 1st trimester.

...Even in the event of rape, incest, or health concerns for the mother?

I mean, I don't like abortions (who does?), but I don't understand punishing someone further when they're a victim.

If it comes down to it, the mother's well being should take precedence. Rape, incest.... shouldn't take 3 months to discover if the woman is pregnant. In extenuating circumstances, sure. But not as a rule. We're talking about the rights of an individual... you know, LIFE, liberty, and so forth ? The unborn, as I see it, share a symbiotic relationship w/ the mother. Regardless of how it got there. As the unborn grows, it's rights emerge, while the sovereign rights of the mother's wane. At some point, well before birth, the unborn deserve at least consideration to its right to life.

I don't hold to the view that the moment of conception is when a zygote is bestowed full rights of an individual. Nature has its say in whether the unborn survives or not. But after a time, it becomes clear that the life inside the mother is becoming its own unique individual. I happen to think that time should be at or around the 1st trimester.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:30 PM

Quote:
At some point, well before birth, the unborn deserve at least consideration to its right to life.

That's not in the Constitution as it's recently been interpreted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm inclined to favor banning, or greatly limiting, all abortions after the 1st trimester.

Not in favor of free markets, eh? Shouldn't the market decide?
'

Your post is nonsensical. It does not apply. Attempted humor on your part ?

No, I'm serious. The "marketplace" for abortion would logically be pregnant women, right? Shouldn't THEY be the ones to decide if and when to seek out such services? I thought you weren't for the government telling you what to do, or intruding into your life, ever, for any reason.

Why here?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:54 PM

I actually agree with you one the first trimestre thing, as that's about the point when a fetus could survive in an incubator. I've also heard that a majority of pregnancies (2/3rds) actually miscarry within the first trimestre.

It really does get murky after that. The point that they could be born to suffering is well taken, but the uncertainty I have that tells me having the opportunity for a life is better than no life at all, as it would be the choice I would want to make or at least be made for me.

However, you are saved by your mention of exceptions, because you really HAVE to have exceptions to the first trimestre rule. It's not just not KNOWING about the pregnancy - I know it's easy to make fun of women who didn't realize, but this is becoming increasingly common and there ARE things that can mask a pregnancy.

Then, there's an issue if the pregnancy is dangerous, and it doesn't become apparent until much later, or if the woman is being FORCED to go through with the pregnancy by her family. This happens to teenagers, and perhaps you might say it's because they deserve it for being promiscuous or something, but think about the case of incest. Think about that guy in England, who kept his daughter locked in a basement and had two children by her.

Exceptions are a necessary part of any rule you might make, and like all rules, I'm hesitant about making it and enforcing it in the first place.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:56 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Preach it, Frem. Preach it, brother.

I can't believe we are all on the same side on this one, except for Rap. Wow.

This is abominable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:15 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

No, I'm serious. The "marketplace" for abortion would logically be pregnant women, right? Shouldn't THEY be the ones to decide if and when to seek out such services? I thought you weren't for the government telling you what to do, or intruding into your life, ever, for any reason.

Why here?

Humanity is not, imo, a 'marketplace'. Answers to questions asked are given above.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:35 PM

Auraptor,

I respect your position on life, but I don't think that "symbiosis" is in any way an applicable term. It's misleading.

The unborn child is living an entirely parasitic existence within the pregnant woman. There is no mutual benefit. The woman's body provides all - some things irreversibly, and that's not even counting the many accompanying dangers and the possibly traumatic pain involved.

For me, the issue is forever framed in terms of organ donation. You cannot force organ donation to save another human being's life. In the same way, you cannot force a woman to donate her entire body to host another human being. If she is unwilling to do so, no obstacles should be put in her way to end that parasitic relationship.

It may make some people uncomfortable, but as long as our time before birth is parasitic we must rightfully depend on the goodwill of our host to make it that far. I have absolutely NO moral qualms about giving pregnant woman that power over their own bodies at the expense of another human being.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:09 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I actually agree with you one the first trimestre thing, as that's about the point when a fetus could survive in an incubator. I've also heard that a majority of pregnancies (2/3rds) actually miscarry within the first trimestre.

It really does get murky after that. The point that they could be born to suffering is well taken, but the uncertainty I have that tells me having the opportunity for a life is better than no life at all, as it would be the choice I would want to make or at least be made for me.

However, you are saved by your mention of exceptions, because you really HAVE to have exceptions to the first trimestre rule. It's not just not KNOWING about the pregnancy - I know it's easy to make fun of women who didn't realize, but this is becoming increasingly common and there ARE things that can mask a pregnancy.

Then, there's an issue if the pregnancy is dangerous, and it doesn't become apparent until much later, or if the woman is being FORCED to go through with the pregnancy by her family. This happens to teenagers, and perhaps you might say it's because they deserve it for being promiscuous or something, but think about the case of incest. Think about that guy in England, who kept his daughter locked in a basement and had two children by her.

Exceptions are a necessary part of any rule you might make, and like all rules, I'm hesitant about making it and enforcing it in the first place.

I pretty much agree with the above post. I'd like to add something else - late term (past 3rd trimester) are often performed because the parents have had a scan/test that indicates some serious fetal abnormality of some kind. I'd like to know what the point of testing pregnant women later in the pregnancy and then giving them no options with regards to what choices they make.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm inclined to favor banning, or greatly limiting, all abortions after the 1st trimester.

This displays a rather appalling amount of ignorance of the topic at hand, but then I expected no less...

Firstoff, there's how we keep them ignorant, uneducated, or even flat lie to them, resulting in what little they might know being a collage of half-truths, rumors and bullshit - for many, the first inkling of even the possibility of pregnancy is "dude, where's my period ?".
And there's a month gone right there.

Then there's the fact of having no way to confirm it, access to such things being as roadblocked as access to condoms, for the same bullshit hypocritical counterproductive reasons - and the difficulty OF addressing it with an adult, who will almost without a doubt begin psychologically abusing them immediately if not physically abusing and threatening them.

Sorry, but "Ha!, no more than you deserve!" isn't exactly my idea of a supportive attitude, and one reason I am oh so very pissed off...

Then there's the extensive and prolonged pyschological abuse and terrorism we force them to endure under the laughable pretense of "counselling" as we try to scare, threaten, and browbeat them out of making their own life-decisions, and much of that counselling is run by religious extremists who use it and the inflicted pyschological fragmentation for their own ends - plus have a vested interest in stalling or dragging it out cause they KNOW the longer they can drag it out and stonewall, the harder it is for their victims to carry through with it.
And there's at least another month.

Then of course, the whole not-having-any-rights thing due to age, and finding an adult willing to stand and deliver, good fekkin luck - then finding a provider at all, and running the gauntlet of abuse at the door and on the grounds...
By the time they reach the door at all, they're on the edge if not over that, thanks to the deliberate roadblocks that serve no valid purpose but malice.

I been offering that service for fifteen years, as escort and protector to the poor girls from folks who seem to care OH SO MUCH about the collective of tissue inside em (right up till it pops out, at which point they could care less!) but sure as shit not one whit for THEM!

And in that time I have had my shoulder watered by many tears, since they dare not show an ounce of weakness to any other adult since that would be instantly used as leverage against them to break their will and force them to do the adults bidding instead of their own, and so they break down to a stranger, albeit one who has already shown support for their decision.

I want you to understand, just how fully, I sincerely HOPE one of those shitheads throwing vile curses and verbal abuse puts a foot wrong, to truly and completely understand, just how much I ENJOY hurting them, because underneath all those bullshit excuses they're just sadists looking for a nice cover outlet to inflict harm on people for their own gratification, and as such I consider em so evil that I get my fekkin rocks off on even the idea I might be allowed to, and get away with, beating them to a bloody pulp.

Call it a character flaw.

And in fifteen years, not one of em hasn't been badly traumatized by the decision itself, and then further savaged emotionally by the conduct of a world that backed them into a corner on purpose and then had the damn gall to throw the blame for it at the victim of it.

You know *why* that girl in philly is willing to drop everything and drive straight here through the night with a van full of equipment, folks ?

Cause when she was seventeen I walked her to the door, through the angry horde, stood by her when no one else in all the world would, and as we rolled up at her home, we see her meager belongings strewn across the porch and front lawn, along with a note taped to the door stating she's no longer welcome in that house - I tore it off and crumpled it with a snarl, stormed off to the car, and turn to see her still standing there among the shattered wreckage of her life that is all she has left...
And meaningfully haul open the passenger door.

She's been one of us ever since.

Did you really think I've never dealt with this issue before, again and again, when most of the folks we wind up with are abused fosters, runaways, throwaways, people cast out, savaged and destroyed by this society ?
That this is not one of the ways that society destroys them ?

Normally I just dodge the issue, refusing to discuss it cause the wellspring of rage about it is so deep, so dark, it's damn near all consuming when I let it loose.

Damn right I am pro-choice, and when it comes to those who cloak their malice, hatred of our own young, and bitter sadism in "for your own good", the veritable worst of all tyrannies...

I ain't got much of a problem with makin it retroactive, neither.

So now you know - think of me what you will.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 2:46 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Auraptor,

I respect your position on life, but I don't think that "symbiosis" is in any way an applicable term. It's misleading.

The unborn child is living an entirely parasitic existence within the pregnant woman. There is no mutual benefit. The woman's body provides all - some things irreversibly, and that's not even counting the many accompanying dangers and the possibly traumatic pain involved.

For me, the issue is forever framed in terms of organ donation. You cannot force organ donation to save another human being's life. In the same way, you cannot force a woman to donate her entire body to host another human being. If she is unwilling to do so, no obstacles should be put in her way to end that parasitic relationship.

In the purely technical sense, it's not a clear symbiotic relationship, as defined. But then again, an organ, will always be just that. The embryo will become what you, I and everyone who has ever existed become - a person.

Quote:

It may make some people uncomfortable, but as long as our time before birth is parasitic we must rightfully depend on the goodwill of our host to make it that far. I have absolutely NO moral qualms about giving pregnant woman that power over their own bodies at the expense of another human being.

I agree, a woman HAS that power. The power to choose whom to have sex with ( save for obvious exceptions ) and the right to decide if she wishes to carry her unborn to term or not. But unlike you, I see the dividing line at around the end of the 1st trimester, where as your view can be interpreted to mean a woman can abort her unborn all the way up to 8 months, 29 days .... or as long as the parasite remains in her person. That is where we differ, it seems.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 2:59 AM

America loves a winner!

Frem

There's nothing ignorant what so ever in my post. You're just too petty and ignorant your self to deal w/ a debate w/ out sinking to insults, distortions and tossing in a few choice vulgarities, simply to add color to you otherwise bland and shallow remarks.

Did I call for a banning of ALL abortions ? Nope. Did I completely overlook or take away the power of the mother ? And yet you treat my view as if I'd advocated " knockin' up the broad and keepin' her barefoot in the kitchen...where she belongs, by god!"

You're immature over reaction to anyone who offers up even the slightest challenge or opposing view to yours is an act which has worn thin.

I've not commented on the OK law. All I've done is remark as to my views on the issue of abortion. Don't mistake what I say as being for or against this specific issue.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 3:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

It may make some people uncomfortable, but as long as our time before birth is parasitic we must rightfully depend on the goodwill of our host to make it that far. I have absolutely NO moral qualms about giving pregnant woman that power over their own bodies at the expense of another human being.

I agree, a woman HAS that power. The power to choose whom to have sex with ( save for obvious exceptions ) and the right to decide if she wishes to carry her unborn to term or not. But unlike you, I see the dividing line at around the end of the 1st trimester, where as your view can be interpreted to mean a woman can abort her unborn all the way up to 8 months, 29 days .... or as long as the parasite remains in her person. That is where we differ, it seems.

I am not going to comment on the sex part because that's entirely irrelevant to the issue of abortion in practical terms.

With regard to late term abortions - I share your discomfort, whether you believe it or not. My ideal situation would be that as soon as the embryo is viable outside the woman's body, it should be "aborted" in a way that preserves its life, so it can be nurtured outside the woman's body. (If the woman wishes to abort, of course.)

If that is not possible or the embryo/fetus cannot survive outside the woman - the case is unfortunately clear to me.

I would not ever condone forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term - at any stage of the pregnancy. I would consider it sad and regrettable and selfish on part of a woman to unnecessarily abort a fetus at a late stage. But I would never attempt to take away that - as perceived by me - fundamental right. As long as her body is involved as a host, she must have full, overriding rights.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 5:18 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
But then again, an organ, will always be just that. The embryo will become what you, I and everyone who has ever existed become - a person.

I think you may have misunderstood the analogy. The prospective organ donor is the pregnant woman, and the critically sick person in need of one of her organs is the foetus. In each case the government is taking control of the woman's body to save the life of another, thus goes the argument I think.

The sufferings and sense of intrusion is comparable (for a forced donor and say, a rape victim), the only difference is that in one case the intrusion is very 'hands on' and the other is simply tieing the woman's hands to make sure nature takes its course in her body against her will.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 5:33 AM

AR: Ooh, I like that. That clears up a LOT of the murkiness on the issue. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 6:08 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wow. I'm shocked. I knew I was putting up a hot one, and I was curious to see what would happen. Started reading down and thought "Neat, we're all in agreement on at least THIS horror". I was even surprised to see Whozit speak up in agreement; you just went up one step in my estimation, Whozit. The I got to Wulf. No surprise there that he didn't even say if he abhorred it or not, just compared it to Obamacare.

Hey dipshit; Obamacare NOW limits abortions even more than they were before, because it's virtually impossible after the bill goes into effect for women to get insurance for abortions--so only the rich can afford to have them and pay out of their own pocket. I'm sure you prefer it that way, but stop lying about "Obamacare", it's the opposite of what you wrote.

Didn't surprise me it would start Frem on a rant...I would rant too, only it would ruin my breakfast (and probably everyone ELSE's, too), I"m so furious.

Then I hit Crappy. I repeat once again: He is not here to be part of a group or discuss issues, he is here for no other reason than to take the opposing view and trigger people into ugliness. This is the last clue I had to have; anyone who can DEFEND this obscenity isn't human, or isn't honest, one of the two. Since he can at least type, I assume the latter.

Turning the discussion from the hideous methods anti-choice assholes will go to in order to make abortion all but impossible, to a discussion of when a fetus becomes a person is a prime example of his tactics. This discussion wasn't about right to life. It's about an inhumane and inhuman effort on the part of those who want NO abortion, EVER, finding sick tactics to force women to bear a child. This law is just plain sick, HOWEVER one feels about when an embryo becomes a "human". There is NEVER any need for a vaginal ultrasound except in extreme cases, to do it to women who have been raped or INCESTUOUSLY raped--because that's what it is--is beyond belief.

You wanna discuss that, then discuss it. There have been plenty of discussions on when an embryo becomes a person, when abortion should be had, and all that. This isn't about that. This is about taking away choice by any means available, since they've failed to get it done BY PROPER LAW.

Agent caught one of the worst things about it, too. For a doctor NOT to tell the woman if he spots a serious problem, and let her face a child with possible brain damage OR WORSE without any recourse or resource, or anyone, couple or otherwise, to have the choice whether they want to care for a severe problem for the rest of its life, is just plain SICK. That IS why ultrasounds are done; to ensure the health of the child.

I'm pretty sure, given the law, that if an anti-choice doctor saw a serious problem which COULD be fixed in eutero, he wouldn't mention it, because the big kicker is that NO DOCTOR CAN BE SUED FOR NOT REPORTING A PROBLEM WITH THE FETUS. Given that, they have free rein.

I'm not getting into a discussion of parasitics or organs or any of that, either. My views on that are my own, and again, that's not what this is about.

As far as having sex, that is the bigget laugh I've heard all day. Maybe when you come back (if we're so unlucky as to have you come back human, which I seriously doubt), then all the above should happen to you when you're a teenage girl. Because the pressures on girls, I won't even go into. Better all you men who can't keep your penises in your pants and know every trick in the book to manipulate women into having sex should carry the children, THEN let's hear what you have to say. It's totally wrong that those who have to suffer (not just until childbirth, but in caring for the child when Mr. Penis walks away or never was there past his first orgasm in the first place) are those with the lesser sexual drive; let those who "gotta have it" be responsible for the consequences.

But again, that's not the point. Oklahoma is in the forefront of draconian tactics to get around the law; they passed one earlier that required a woman to fill out a form of personal information before getting an abortion, which form (nameless--for now at least) went on the internet. Prior to THAT they passed the law that any woman, however young, raped or not, had to undergo a "lecture" from a doctor providing the abortion about all the horrors they could dream up regarding abortion, and be hit with enormous propaganda about "taking a life", etc. They have one agenda and one agenda only, and they'll do whatever they can to further it.

The anti-choice mob (because they ARE a mob in my mind) has found all kinds of methods to limit the availability of abortion in this country, ever since they realized they weren't getting anywhere openly opposing Roe v. Wade, right down to the point of murdering doctors, then lauding and making martyrs out of their killers. It won't stop; I envision them huddled around a table like a bunch of ugly witches (my apologies to witches) stirring a caldron, hatching up more inventive ways to make abortion impossible. That is ALL they care about.

Anyone who has not been willing to adopt one of those children they made impossible to abort--ESPECIALLY MALES--has nothing to say to me about abortion. They're so hot on "right to life"? Then they can CARE for those lives. Period. In my opinion, men should have little to say about it in the very first place; certainly not moddle-aged white Republican males who have no responsibility for the outcome of their sick "laws".

The law was written by Republicans, passed by Republicans, vetoed by a Democrat, and the veto overriden by Republicans. That's all I need to know on the subject.

This one hits me right where I live...never had kids, never intended to and always took careful precautions never to get pregnant. Luckily for me, thos precautions worked. But that doesn't change my feelings one whit about a woman's right to choose whether to bear and care for a baby.

People so hot on all fetus' becoming humans SHOULD BE responsible for them after birth if the mother doesn't want to. At no time is it taken into account that unwanted children sometimes face a horrible life, or no life at all. Let them be responsible for the quality of that life, not just manipulate to make sure it's born then walk away patting themselves on the back and preening how they "saved" another life.

Ooops, I ranted after all. Tough shit. But I'll quit now. Breakfast is ruined anyway; on to other, less upsetting, threads...

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 12:37 PM

Oh quit whinin Rappy - I have a vicious streak regarding the topic for some damned obvious reasons, and the only part of that specifically directed at you was indeed your ignorance regarding how long it actually takes to get to a point where...

A. The girl is aware of the pregnancy.
B. Has jumped through all the deliberate, intentional hoops and stalls set up to PREVENT them from getting it done in the first trimester.

Cause that's the game, they use red tape, pyschological abuse under the polite fiction of counselling, and every other topic to stall, stall, stall, and then play on peoples horror regarding later abortions without disclosing their own part in MAKING those abortions later just to have that extra leverage.

And you not knowing that was ignorance, hell, if anything I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, attributing lack of knowledge instead of intentional malice.

As for the rest, maybe if you, personally, had to "clean up the mess" left by these inhuman, even inhumane, policies over and over, ya might well have a better understanding of why I have such an attitude about it - what do you THINK happens often enough when they back these kids into a corner, traumatize em to where they're no longer rational, and they start to see suicide as the only logical option ?

And who's gotta deal with that mess ?

Certainly not the assholes in their ivory towers putting such legislation together for political points, uncaring of the damage they cause, pandering to their base of stupid, wicked, religious crusaders without a care in the world one way or the other beyond being able to climb on top of a wedge issue and use it to advance themselves...

Nope, that dirty job comes down to people like me, and until you've done it for a decade and more, you will never truly understand why there's no way in hell imma ever approach this issue with anything like the polite, clinical detatchment of folk who've never come face to face with the ugly consequences of it.

And yeah, I've got an attitude about it, and all the issues attached to it, since it's not a single issue but rather one of a set all wrapped together and realizing that is the first step towards doing something to actually solve the goddamn problem, like actually educating our young, like not deliberately and intentionally blocking them from access to birth control and then howling about the inevitable result of human nature.

Or like the fact that those same folk using abortion as a wedge issue are the very same folk creating a need for it *BY* blocking any real education or access, quite intentionally, so as to have this issue available to score political points, without regard to the victims of that policy since they never have to face the consequences of their own deeds in this respect.

You wanna reduce abortion, then realize that the folk you're praising for restricting them are also in great part responsible for that need - stand up for better education and access so it never needs come to a point where there's an unwanted pregnancy to be discussing, and then be prepared to accept that those same folk you thought were on your side, will be cockblocking you all the way, screaming and throwing a hissy cause actually solving the problem would reduce or remove their ability to use it for political advancement.

It's a whole issue, not just one piece, but if you really care about the situation, then you're addressing it from the wrong end - preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first damn place would solve this problem at a stroke.

But first you need to accept that most of the people supposedly trying to "solve" the problem of abortion are in great part responsible for it BEING a problem in the first place.

And if you can't do that, then there's no point in discussin it with you.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 1:03 PM

Add to that the fact that in lots of places (like west Texas, for one), it's a 200-mile trip to the nearest place that offers abortion services, which makes it pretty much a weekend trip and an overnight stay - not always an easy thing to sell parents on if you're trying to do it on the QT when you're under age. Then add in bullshit things like waiting periods, mandatory counseling sessions, and the like, so you have to come back ANOTHER weekend, and you see why and how it's intentionally made all the harder to get services that are (supposedly) perfectly legal in all 50 states.

I know from personal experience, from being the stand-up guy to accompany a friend of mine through all this when the shit-heel she laid down for disappeared at the first hint of unwanted trouble. Anybody who thinks this is any kind of a joyride has never been through it, never known anyone who went through it, and has no fucking idea what the hell they're talking about. It's hard enough already; it shouldn't be made harder on the people who are already desperate and hurting.

'Course, as Frem pointed out oh so many times, it *shouldn't* ever even get to that point, or if it does, it should be a quick over-the-counter solution - but the anti-choice crowd doesn't want that, because they want to be able to get into people's faces about things that are none of their goddam business in any place.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 1:10 PM

MAL4PREZ

Amen, AgentRouka.

Amen, Frem.

I got nothing else to add. Y'all have my bases covered.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 1:22 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:seems.
I am not going to comment on the sex part because that's entirely irrelevant to the issue of abortion in practical terms.

Is it? Really?

Quote:

With regard to late term abortions - I share your discomfort, whether you believe it or not. My ideal situation would be that as soon as the embryo is viable outside the woman's body, it should be "aborted" in a way that preserves its life, so it can be nurtured outside the woman's body. (If the woman wishes to abort, of course.)

To quote Wash - That sounds like science fiction. Basically, you're saying that a woman shouldn't have to be burdened w/ having to tote that critter around inside of her for 9 friggin months, right?

Evolution kinda begs to differ.

Sorry, you're suggesting that women who CHOOSES to abort, ..yeah, i get your point. It's been a long day/ week.

Quote:

If that is not possible or the embryo/fetus cannot survive outside the woman - the case is unfortunately clear to me.

I would not ever condone forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term - at any stage of the pregnancy. I would consider it sad and regrettable and selfish on part of a woman to unnecessarily abort a fetus at a late stage. But I would never attempt to take away that - as perceived by me - fundamental right. As long as her body is involved as a host, she must have full, overriding rights.

What I'm talking about isn't "forcing" anything. It's educating, and dammit, making people, WOMEN, understand exactly what the hell it is they're facing here.

It's another life, a HUMAN life. It's not a god damn 'burden'.

to you, Mr President, for ever uttering that crap. You should know better.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 1:28 PM

Then let's let right-to-lifers take those unwanted children and raise them. With no help from the taxpayers, of course. After all, why would they need help, if there's no "burden" involved?

When can I drop those babies off on your doorstep, Rappy?

And WHY do you assume it's all the woman's fault? Have you ever known a woman who got pregnant without a man's help?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 30, 2010 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:seems.
I am not going to comment on the sex part because that's entirely irrelevant to the issue of abortion in practical terms.

Is it? Really?

Yes. If you, like I do, consider abortion a fundamental right, then it is really entirely relevant how a woman got pregnant and why she chooses to have one.

Quote:

Sorry, you're suggesting that women who CHOOSES to abort, ..yeah, i get your point. It's been a long day/ week.

I'm glad there is no misunderstanding, then.

Quote:

What I'm talking about isn't "forcing" anything. It's educating, and dammit, making people, WOMEN, understand exactly what the hell it is they're facing here.

It's another life, a HUMAN life. It's not a god damn 'burden'.

You'll notice that I specifically use the words "human being" in my organ donation analogy. An unborn child is no more a burden than a person in need of organ donation, but also no more entitled to getting what they need to survive from an unwillin person's body.

It is, indeed, about a human life. The vast majority of women who choose abortions know this very clearly. They still make the very valid choice not to "donate". Because that is and always should be their right. Making them jump through a ton of hoops to decline donating their body to another human being, with high risks and guaranteed massive pain involved in the prcess.. nope. Not right.

Btw, Auraptor, to feel out the common ground: How do you feel about the provision in there that allows doctors to lie to their patients about the health of the fetus? More than the vaginal ultrasound (I don't think that's as bad as people make out here) I find this to be dangerous and immoral. What do you think about it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 5:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
(I don't think that's as bad as people make out here)

That depends on the circumstances - try suggesting it to a freaked out victim who goes absolutely berserk if someone even touches her, for example.

But then, that's one problem even with dealing with such things even on a criminal level, having been handled in such a traumatizing way they have no desire to repeat the experience even at the hands of medical professionals, and therein lies the moral question of how to cope with that, when they go completely ballistic - then what ?

I've run into quite a few that just *might* have been able to cope, were it not for an examination under force/sedation in combination with a serious lack of respect and understanding when their own body is treated as "evidence" and they are vilified, or even penalized, for refusing an experience that will further traumatise them.

It also brings up the medical ethics of a forced examination of any kind, or one under duress - that's always been a serious nasty can of worms no one wants to talk about cause it makes them really uncomfortable, but for example, the FLDS mess, when they were forcing deeply religious folk to undergo the pawing of some stranger in the employ of the state while disrespecting their own personhood and testimony on the assumption they were 'guilty' of being abused - without regard to the fact that what they were being forced to undergo was *to them*, not a whit different than what the state was accusing members of their community of doing.

Seriously, if some stranger did that a kid under threat of force/duress/coercion, you'd lock them up as a sex offender, so how it is then that it is acceptable when someone wearing the right uniform does so ?

And so too this, when you revoke a human beings decision of "keep your hands off me!" - you abuse that human being, whether your intentions are noble or otherwise, and this bill here is abusive in that it inserts itself into a doctor-patient relationship in which the state has no business, and demands procedures which have no purpose beyond deliberately traumatizing the patient, which violate the Hippocratic Oath and the most solemn responsibility of any physician, which is to "Do no further harm".

I dunno whether that gets it across, this is a subject that makes people *really* uncomfortable and is difficult to discuss for that reason, but I hope that clarifies in part why my opinion of it is so hostile.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 7:30 AM

Frem,

I'm not disagreeing that the ultrasound itself is a cruel and unnecessary measure and there is no justification to unnecessarily inflict it, especially on a victim of abuse.

But considering what the procedure of abortion itself entails, it seems odd to go so ballistic over this particular exam. Without wanting to enter TMI territory, I've been on the receiving end of such an exam before an appendectomy, and it is not in an of itself painful or worse than any other regular exam a doctor can perform in that area. It's used more than some people may think.

What is reprehensible is the insistence that women view the resulting images and have everything explained as if they didn't already know.

But to throw around terms like "object rape" when the exam itself may well be necessary before the procedure so the doctor has a clear idea of what the situation is, regardless of what this law has newly decreed... doesn't want to seem right to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 7:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

How is the exam itself "necessary before the procedure so the doctor has a clear idea of what the situation is", if the doctor has no intention of telling the woman if there is something wrong with the fetus?

Everyone knows the vaginal ultrasound has no other purpose than to further the misery of the woman to try to get her not to have an abortion.

You may find it not so awful, but I maintain that having it, as opposed to a non-invasive abdominal one, is an additional humiliation and additional pain that a woman, whether going through an abortion or birth, should NOT have to endure.

Just because it's a lesser pain/problem than the abortion or birth is no argument.

There is no debate here, as far as I'm concerned. The law (and the others regarding abortion) has nothing to do with health of baby or mother, nor anything else; it has an agenda and that is wrong. Period.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 8:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
How is the exam itself "necessary before the procedure so the doctor has a clear idea of what the situation is", if the doctor has no intention of telling the woman if there is something wrong with the fetus?

Everyone knows the vaginal ultrasound has no other purpose than to further the misery of the woman to try to get her not to have an abortion.

You may find it not so awful, but I maintain that having it, as opposed to a non-invasive abdominal one, is an additional humiliation and additional pain that a woman, whether going through an abortion or birth, should NOT have to endure.

Just because it's a lesser pain/problem than the abortion or birth is no argument.

There is no debate here, as far as I'm concerned. The law (and the others regarding abortion) has nothing to do with health of baby or mother, nor anything else; it has an agenda and that is wrong. Period.

Niki, do you honestly think I condone any of this? If you have read any of my other posts in this topic, you should know that it is not the case, so don't answer me as if I am in favor of this law. Vent at someone else.

I presume that sometimes a vaginal ultrasound can be necessary so the doctor performing the abortion has a clear picture of the situation inside the uterus. It's the clearer image. It's in the interest of a safe procedure. I will not apologize for thinking that because I am not thinking it in order to oppress and humiliate women and abuse victims.

A vaginal ultrasound is not in and of itself evil. It is done for a lot of different reasons completely unrelated to humiliating women.

It's the REASON they want to make some women go through this exam that is evil, not the exam itself. Because that might well be necessary for completely normal medical reasons.

So yes, there is a further humiliation factor to women having to have a vaginal ultrasound, but instruments will be up an aborting woman's vagina, regardless. That has got to be far less horrible than the trauma of being forced to stare at the screen and have everything explained unnecessarily. THAT is wrong, whether the ultrasound is vaginal or abdominal.

The "object rape" aspect is the very least of the things wrong with this law, yet it's the headline for this very topic! I think the focus is way off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 8:46 AM

CHRISISALL

I feel the need to insert this information for those that might not know- dropping body fat to at or below 3% will automatically terminate a pregnancy.
No need for doctors or rules or zealots to get involved.
Female body builders found this out YEARS ago.

FYIisall

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 1, 2010 8:56 AM