Question for Republicans: Virginia ultrasound law

[Fritz]

Anyone who watches MSNBC has heard much about this new law passed in Virginia, requiring women seeking an abortion to have an intrusive and medically unnecessary vaginal ultrasound.  It has been called "state sponsored rape", being vaginal penetration without the woman's consent.  I have yet to see Sean Hannity or anyone on Fox News try to defend this law.  I am really curious- how do the Republicans justify this?  What is the reason for requiring this wholly unnecessary and invasive procedure?  It does not prevent abortion, all it does is add another hurdle to getting one.  I really would like to know how any reasonable person can be in favor of this.

[CaDan]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/ultrasounds-va-planned-parenthood-abortion-procedure/

Ultrasounds are already part of the abortion procedures at Virginia Planned Parenthoods.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/ultrasounds-va-planned-parenthood-abortion-procedure/

Ultrasounds are already part of the abortion procedures at Virginia Planned Parenthoods.

The Virginia law would mandate doctors to display and describe the ultrasound to the patient.

Also, more importantly, do you know the difference between a transvaginal ultrasound and a transabdominal one?

[angus]

Anyone who watches MSNBC ___________________

What a way to start a thread.  It reads like one of those whacky fill-in games in my son's scholastic weekly reader magazines from school.

[tpfkaw]

If one truly believes that abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle possible to obtaining abortions.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If one truly believes that abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle possible to obtaining abortions.

Not necessarily dildo rape by a physician.

[Free Palestine]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/ultrasounds-va-planned-parenthood-abortion-procedure/

Ultrasounds are already part of the abortion procedures at Virginia Planned Parenthoods.

As Nathan said, it isn't shoved in the patient's face like "OOOOOH LOOK AT THIS BABBY YER GONNA KILL," like the Virginia law will require.

[tpfkaw]

If one truly believes that abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle possible to obtaining abortions.

Not necessarily dildo rape by a physician.

Why not?  Isn't that preferable to murder?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If one truly believes that abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle possible to obtaining abortions.

Not necessarily dildo rape by a physician.

Why not?  Isn't that preferable to murder?

Quite honestly, no, rape is not preferable to murder.

[tpfkaw]

If one truly believes that abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle possible to obtaining abortions.

Not necessarily dildo rape by a physician.

Why not?  Isn't that preferable to murder?

Quite honestly, no, rape is not preferable to murder.

Would you rather be raped or murdered?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Heard about this story on NPR yesterday.  Judging by what was said on the radio, the problem is that the new law in Virgina (and Texas) requires a specific level of detail in the ultrasound images that those passing the law probably did not realize would require penetration during early pregnancy in order to be achieved.

Personally, I think these laws are an excessive intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship.  But, when you have judges legislating from the bench as has been the case with abortion law in the United States ever since Roe v. Wade was decided, it is not surprising that we'd get these sorts of bad laws in response.

[Insula Dei]

If one truly believes that abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle possible to obtaining abortions.

Rape-murder combo. It's the libertarian thing to do.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If one truly believes that abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle possible to obtaining abortions.

Not necessarily dildo rape by a physician.

Why not?  Isn't that preferable to murder?

Quite honestly, no, rape is not preferable to murder.

Would you rather be raped or murdered?

I'd have a very hard time making that decision.

[tpfkaw]

If one truly believes that abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle possible to obtaining abortions.

Rape-murder combo. It's the libertarian thing to do.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous or is your English too poor to have good reading comprehension?

If one truly believes that abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle possible to obtaining abortions.

Not necessarily dildo rape by a physician.

Why not?  Isn't that preferable to murder?

Quite honestly, no, rape is not preferable to murder.

Would you rather be raped or murdered?

I'd have a very hard time making that decision.

Alright, so you would be undecided (going the "fetuses are people" route) over which would be worse (with equivalent scenarios):

1. Being torn limb from limb.
2. Having your penis touched with an ultrasound wand.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If one truly believes that abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle possible to obtaining abortions.

Not necessarily dildo rape by a physician.

Why not?  Isn't that preferable to murder?

Quite honestly, no, rape is not preferable to murder.

Would you rather be raped or murdered?

I'd have a very hard time making that decision.

Alright, so you would be undecided (going the "fetuses are people" route) over which would be worse (with equivalent scenarios):

1. Being torn limb from limb.
2. Having your penis touched with an ultrasound wand.

False equivalency. If you must know, I'd certainly be immensely, immensely opposed to 2. if I was already in a listless and undesirable emotional state because of something concerning my sex organs, particularly if it were completely unnecessary rigamarole as regarded the goal of getting me to not kill somebody.

There are ways to make abortion harder to access without mandating invasive exploratory medical procedures. Especially since a medical procedure seen as invasive and undesirable is what it's trying to discourage.

[Insula Dei]

If one truly believes that abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle possible to obtaining abortions.

Rape-murder combo. It's the libertarian thing to do.

Are you being deliberately disingenuous or is your English too poor to have good reading comprehension?

Neither, friend, I just happen think that bad abortion doesn't get better when it's anticipated by bad unvoluntary vaginal penetration. But hey, I've never read Ayn Rand or nothing, so I wouldn't know about things like that.

[tpfkaw]

False equivalency. If you must know, I'd certainly be immensely, immensely opposed to 2. if I was already in a listless and undesirable emotional state because of something concerning my sex organs, particularly if it were completely unnecessary rigamarole as regarded the goal of getting me to not kill somebody.

There are ways to make abortion harder to access without mandating invasive exploratory medical procedures. Especially since a medical procedure seen as invasive and undesirable is what it's trying to discourage.

So your problem with abortion is that it's "invasive and undesirable," not that it's a form of murder?  From my perspective, assuming one did believe abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle to obtaining abortions whatsover, including this one, as it makes getting an abortion more expensive, more time-consuming, more undesirable, and increases the likelihood that the mother would have a change of heart.  If you say "abortion is murder," you have to own that position.  Either "abortion is murder and it's okay" (which is sort of the tack you've been taking so far), or "abortion is murder and it's therefore moral to stop it by any proportionate means necessary."

Neither, friend, I just happen think that bad abortion doesn't get better when it's anticipated by bad unvoluntary vaginal penetration. But hey, I've never read Ayn Rand or nothing, so I wouldn't know about things like that.

Sorry, I've never read Rand either so I guess I wouldn't know it either.  I'm playing the devil's advocate here, in case you couldn't tell.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

False equivalency. If you must know, I'd certainly be immensely, immensely opposed to 2. if I was already in a listless and undesirable emotional state because of something concerning my sex organs, particularly if it were completely unnecessary rigamarole as regarded the goal of getting me to not kill somebody.

There are ways to make abortion harder to access without mandating invasive exploratory medical procedures. Especially since a medical procedure seen as invasive and undesirable is what it's trying to discourage.

So your problem with abortion is that it's "invasive and undesirable," not that it's a form of murder?  From my perspective, assuming one did believe abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle to obtaining abortions whatsover, including this one, as it makes getting an abortion more expensive, more time-consuming, more undesirable, and increases the likelihood that the mother would have a change of heart.  If you say "abortion is murder," you have to own that position.  Either "abortion is murder and it's okay" (which is sort of the tack you've been taking so far), or "abortion is murder and it's therefore moral to stop it by any proportionate means necessary."

I have not said that that is my problem with abortion or if I even have one, specifically. One can argue for the legitimacy of points of view other than one's own. Thinking that something is not sufficiently bad to justify legally-mandated dildo rape, especially if other ways to keep people from doing it are available is not the same as thinking that it is not bad except in very disordered ways of thinking. You yourself used the word 'proportionate' in that last sentence there. I happen to not think that legally-mandated molestation is an appropriate or proportionate way of dealing with anything, except possibly a critical molestation shortage, which isn't a thing.

[tpfkaw]

False equivalency. If you must know, I'd certainly be immensely, immensely opposed to 2. if I was already in a listless and undesirable emotional state because of something concerning my sex organs, particularly if it were completely unnecessary rigamarole as regarded the goal of getting me to not kill somebody.

There are ways to make abortion harder to access without mandating invasive exploratory medical procedures. Especially since a medical procedure seen as invasive and undesirable is what it's trying to discourage.

So your problem with abortion is that it's "invasive and undesirable," not that it's a form of murder?  From my perspective, assuming one did believe abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle to obtaining abortions whatsover, including this one, as it makes getting an abortion more expensive, more time-consuming, more undesirable, and increases the likelihood that the mother would have a change of heart.  If you say "abortion is murder," you have to own that position.  Either "abortion is murder and it's okay" (which is sort of the tack you've been taking so far), or "abortion is murder and it's therefore moral to stop it by any proportionate means necessary."

I have not said that that is my problem with abortion or if I even have one, specifically. One can argue for the legitimacy of points of view other than one's own. Thinking that something is not sufficiently bad to justify legally-mandated dildo rape, especially if other ways to keep people from doing it are available is not the same as thinking that it is not bad except in very disordered ways of thinking. You yourself used the word 'proportionate' in that last sentence there.

I was under the impression you were "pro-life," are you not?  In any case, if the fetus is a co-equal human being to the mother, then anything up to and including killing either the mother or the abortionist (assuming the fetus could survive the former) would be proportionate.  Yes, including "dildo rape."  To say X method of preventing it is not okay because Y is a different method is a non-sequitur.  Calling the cops, incapacitating your assailant in self-defense, or installing a barbed wire electrified fence around your home might all be ways of preventing yourself from being murdered, and all are equally legitimate in the context of preventing murder.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

False equivalency. If you must know, I'd certainly be immensely, immensely opposed to 2. if I was already in a listless and undesirable emotional state because of something concerning my sex organs, particularly if it were completely unnecessary rigamarole as regarded the goal of getting me to not kill somebody.

There are ways to make abortion harder to access without mandating invasive exploratory medical procedures. Especially since a medical procedure seen as invasive and undesirable is what it's trying to discourage.

So your problem with abortion is that it's "invasive and undesirable," not that it's a form of murder?  From my perspective, assuming one did believe abortion is murder, one would support any obstacle to obtaining abortions whatsover, including this one, as it makes getting an abortion more expensive, more time-consuming, more undesirable, and increases the likelihood that the mother would have a change of heart.  If you say "abortion is murder," you have to own that position.  Either "abortion is murder and it's okay" (which is sort of the tack you've been taking so far), or "abortion is murder and it's therefore moral to stop it by any proportionate means necessary."

I have not said that that is my problem with abortion or if I even have one, specifically. One can argue for the legitimacy of points of view other than one's own. Thinking that something is not sufficiently bad to justify legally-mandated dildo rape, especially if other ways to keep people from doing it are available is not the same as thinking that it is not bad except in very disordered ways of thinking. You yourself used the word 'proportionate' in that last sentence there.

I was under the impression you were "pro-life," are you not?

That's a disgustingly disingenuous term.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, no, not unless one is a huge hypocrite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only if you have the prevention of murder as some sort of terminal moral value to which all roads lead. Not if you actually have some sort of comprehensive or nuanced or otherwise generally sane conception of moral law.

X method of preventing it is not okay because X act is not okay.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I think it's a stretch to call this "rape," but there's no point to this law other than to guilt women out of having abortions. Against.

[CaDan]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/ultrasounds-va-planned-parenthood-abortion-procedure/

Ultrasounds are already part of the abortion procedures at Virginia Planned Parenthoods.

As Nathan said, it isn't shoved in the patient's face like "OOOOOH LOOK AT THIS BABBY YER GONNA KILL," like the Virginia law will require.

I can't read what Nathan says since he is on ignore, but your point is irrelevant though.

The abortion lobby is screaming "OH NOEZ RAPEZ" but the very same procedure they are saying is "rape" is ALREADY used by the very doctors they go to to kill their children.

You can't say, "DIS IS STATE MANDATED RAPEZ" and base your argument on the ultrasound if the ultrasound is part of the current procedure.

The only difference is now the abortionist has to offer the image to the woman.

[Free Palestine]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/ultrasounds-va-planned-parenthood-abortion-procedure/

Ultrasounds are already part of the abortion procedures at Virginia Planned Parenthoods.

As Nathan said, it isn't shoved in the patient's face like "OOOOOH LOOK AT THIS BABBY YER GONNA KILL," like the Virginia law will require.

I can't read what Nathan says since he is on ignore, but your point is irrelevant though.

The abortion lobby is screaming "OH NOEZ RAPEZ" but the very same procedure they are saying is "rape" is ALREADY used by the very doctors they go to to kill their children.

You can't say, "DIS IS STATE MANDATED RAPEZ" and base your argument on the ultrasound if the ultrasound is part of the current procedure.

The only difference is now the abortionist has to offer the image to the woman.

As Nathan said, there's a difference between the kind of ultrasound that's usually done -- the usual ultrasound -- and the kind mandated by this, which would involve having something shoved up the patient's vagina.  Generally, having something forced into one's vagina is rape.

And...

Offer?  The law doesn't mandate that the doctor has to offer the ultrasound to the patient.  It mandates that it be shoved in the patient's face, for no other reason than to cause distress and make the patient feel bad.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/ultrasounds-va-planned-parenthood-abortion-procedure/

Ultrasounds are already part of the abortion procedures at Virginia Planned Parenthoods.

As Nathan said, it isn't shoved in the patients face like "OOOOOH LOOK AT THIS BABBY YER GONNA KILL," like the Virginia law will require.

I can't read what Nathan says since he is on ignore, but your point is irrelevant though.

The abortion lobby is screaming "OH NOEZ RAPEZ" but the very same procedure they are saying is "rape" is ALREADY used by the very doctors they go to to kill their children.

You can't say, "DIS IS STATE MANDATED RAPEZ" and base your argument on the ultrasound if the ultrasound is part of the current procedure.

The only difference is now the abortionist has to offer the image to the woman.

Your points are wrong. Every. Single. One.

1. It should be the abortion doctors choice if he wants to force his patients to see the Ultrasound. If they do not want to see it, then they can go to another abortion doctor.

2. It IS state mandated rape. The women makes the choice to have the abortion, but not the choice to be probed.

3. It is, in my opinion, Virginia's states right to enact this law. But it is California's states right to do the opposite, so none of this really matters.

None the less, I still am opposed to abortion, and I am only mildly against this law.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/ultrasounds-va-planned-parenthood-abortion-procedure/

Ultrasounds are already part of the abortion procedures at Virginia Planned Parenthoods.

As Nathan said, it isn't shoved in the patient's face like "OOOOOH LOOK AT THIS BABBY YER GONNA KILL," like the Virginia law will require.

I can't read what Nathan says since he is on ignore, but your point is irrelevant though.

The abortion lobby is screaming "OH NOEZ RAPEZ" but the very same procedure they are saying is "rape" is ALREADY used by the very doctors they go to to kill their children.

You can't say, "DIS IS STATE MANDATED RAPEZ" and base your argument on the ultrasound if the ultrasound is part of the current procedure.

The only difference is now the abortionist has to offer the image to the woman.

Funnily, I don't have you on ignore, even though I'm the one between us who seems to understand how ignore actually works and that it's perfectly possible to see the posts of someone who's on ignore if you choose to. Which is why I don't have you on ignore. You're too tempting.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, yeah, you really need to learn the difference between transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasounds. Transvaginal ultrasounds are usually only used to get very detailed images of very specific things; once it's grown to the point of recognizability you don't even need a transvaginal ultrasound to determine a fetus' sex let alone how far along it is or its general shape. There's no reason why a normal pregnancy should require a transvaginal ultrasound. For that matter the imaging that results from a transabdominal ultrasound can be, itself, pretty emotionally walloping if that is one's goal. The only exceptions to this are the early stages of pregnancy, at which you do need a transvaginal ultrasound to detect gestation but at which there is absolutely no reason to.

There are reasons why one would want to do ultrasounds at the stages of pregnancy when transabdominal ultrasounds are done. There is no rational reason to do an ultrasound in early pregnancy unless the pregnancy is out of the ordinary. Part of why it isn't generally done is precisely because the ultrasounds have to be transvaginal.

Also, if I may ask (I don't expect an answer for reasons that you've made obvious but I want the question to be on the record), CaDan, do you, in general, see rape as a problem (not asking if you see it as wrong, asking if you see it as something that is a social problem)? Because the way you're talking about rape, as a concept, is...troubling to me, shall we say.


I'm not even in favor of abortion under most circumstances and I think this law is despicable.