Abortion ... the wiki

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:33 pm

Guyr Adamantine wrote:Without consent, dipshit. I don't think you got that one part.

You have consent for the whole procedure. It's not like you have consent for every specific element in the procedure. You consent for the entire procedure and this step is merely one element in that procedure which is no more invasive than the procedure itself.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:46 pm

Tzor, if you really really want to double down on your claim that shoving inanimate objects up a woman's vagina against her will is not rape and totally fine, how would you feel if TSA decided to shove a probe up your ass whenever you wanted to board a plane?

-Username17

RiotGearEpsilon · Post by **RiotGearEpsilon** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:49 pm

This thread is even more disconcerting and terrifying when you have Tzor blocked. It's like a horror movie where they never quite let you see the monster.

Then you hit 'Click HERE to view this post' and it turns out he's just some misogynist.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:55 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Tzor, if you really really want to double down on your claim that shoving inanimate objects up a woman's vagina against her will is not rape and totally fine, how would you feel if TSA decided to shove a probe up your ass whenever you wanted to board a plane?

Cavity searches?

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:33 pm

Well if we go by my argument that the abortion procedure itself requires a more evasive penetration into a woman's vagina, and if we go my Frank's counter example, then Frank must think he is fucked up the ass every time he boards a plane.

(Riot's going to love the responses to that one.)

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:55 pm

tzor wrote:Well if we go by my argument that the abortion procedure itself requires a more evasive penetration into a woman's vagina

The procedure requires this, unlike the vaginal probe. Another difference, the fact you're ignoring this in your counter kind of horrifies me, the abortion procedure requires consent.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:55 pm

tzor wrote:Well if we go by my argument that the abortion procedure itself requires a more evasive penetration into a woman's vagina

I assume you mean invasive.

The degree of invasiveness is irrelevant. If I stick my entire penis into someone it is more invasive than if I stick just the tip in, but whether or not either is a problem is entirely dependent on whether or not the person I'm sticking it in wants me to or not, not how far it goes in.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:09 pm

virgil wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:Tzor, if you really really want to double down on your claim that shoving inanimate objects up a woman's vagina against her will is not rape and totally fine, how would you feel if TSA decided to shove a probe up your ass whenever you wanted to board a plane?
Cavity searches?

Searching for something? Not at all. They're not sticking things up your ass because they have some useful purpose. They're doing it just because the state wants people who board airplanes to have things stuck in their ass first. See, you have to understand that the probe being put in the woman's vagina is not medically necessary or in anyway related to the medical procedure she's requesting. It doesn't do anything in the context of the abortion procedure or even pre-abortion examination.

Now, I'd still say Frank's example is bad for a different reason. It's really hard to imagine the State of Texas wanting to punish people for boarding airplanes, because no one actually hates people who ride airplanes. But does the State of Texas want to punish women for getting abortions? Uhh, yeah. Definitely. So when you read between the lines of the law in question, it reads: "You want to get an abortion? Fuck you. The supreme court won't actually let us stop you, but they haven't told us we can't try to punish you for it. So if you want that abortion, you're going to have to let us shove this in your vagina." There's no redeeming purpose. It's just a pathetic, transparent attempt to punish and shame women who want abortions using penetration of the vagina, and it's that motivation that really drives home the WTF factor; this law is explicitly meant to be sexual violence against women seeking abortions.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:13 pm

Neeeek wrote:I assume you mean invasive.

Yes I type badly.

Neeeek wrote:The degree of invasiveness is irrelevant. If I stick my entire penis into someone it is more invasive than if I stick just the tip in, but whether or not either is a problem is entirely dependent on whether or not the person I'm sticking it in wants me to or not, not how far it goes in.

Neeeek, I am not sure we really want to go there. Can't give you the links right now because I'm at work but I believe sensitivity is concentrated more on the open end than near the cervix so your example is equally invasive either way.

virgil wrote:The procedure requires this, unlike the vaginal probe.

Perhaps it should require this. One of the results of the whole Roe vs Wade etc rullings is that abortion as a procedure generally falls under the radar of good practice. Malpractice and procedural mistakes are easily swept under the rug through "privacy" laws.

You know if a guy is getting a prostrate biopsy, using this device is often necessary, even though the equipment is far larger than the needle used for the biopsy, I wouldn't say that I'm getting but fucked because of the procedure.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:35 pm

tzor wrote: Perhaps it should require this. One of the results of the whole Roe vs Wade etc rullings is that abortion as a procedure generally falls under the radar of good practice. Malpractice and procedural mistakes are easily swept under the rug through "privacy" laws.

Actual doctors say it's unnecessary. I'll take their word on it over the word of people who are looking for a way to make this as unnecessarily awkward as possible.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:38 pm

tzor wrote:
Guyr Adamantine wrote:Without consent, dipshit. I don't think you got that one part.
You have consent for the whole procedure. It's not like you have consent for every specific element in the procedure. You consent for the entire procedure and this step is merely one element in that procedure which is no more invasive than the procedure itself.

How about this proposed law:

Everyone who requests an abortion in Texas must first be slapped in the face by their doctor, as part of the procedure.

Assault, or not?

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:50 pm

Whatever wrote:
tzor wrote:
Guyr Adamantine wrote:Without consent, dipshit. I don't think you got that one part.
You have consent for the whole procedure. It's not like you have consent for every specific element in the procedure. You consent for the entire procedure and this step is merely one element in that procedure which is no more invasive than the procedure itself.
How about this proposed law:

Everyone who requests an abortion in Texas must first be slapped in the face by their doctor, as part of the procedure.

Assault, or not?

Of course not! It's part of the procedure... to which you've consented to!

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:55 pm

Hell, why go halfway?

What if the law required the doctor to put his penis in the woman's vagina before she could have an abortion?

Rape or not, Tzor?

Then tell us why the transvag probe is more valid than the doctor's penis, when neither is required for the abortion procedure.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:59 am

tzor wrote:Apparently I am the hypocrite (and a terrible person as well). I’m not the one using hyperbole with the notion that, as Frank States, “Forcing any object into a woman's vagina is rape.” So what definition of the word do you wish to use

He typed that is response to you quoting a source that claimed rape could only occur with penis in vagina sex. Clearly if you were remotely honest or intelligent, you would have recognized that he did not state a complete definition.

You want to know what definition to use for rape? How about this one motherfucker:

a. An actor is guilty of aggravated sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:
(1) The victim is less than 13 years old;
(2) The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old; and
(a) The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree, or
(b) The actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the actor's legal, professional, or occupational status, or
(c) The actor is a resource family parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;
(3) The act is committed during the commission, or attempted commission, whether alone or with one or more other persons, of robbery, kidnapping, homicide, aggravated assault on another, burglary, arson or criminal escape;
(4) The actor is armed with a weapon or any object fashioned in such a manner as to lead the victim to reasonably believe it to be a weapon and threatens by word or gesture to use the weapon or object;
(5) The actor is aided or abetted by one or more other persons and the actor uses physical force or coercion;
(6) The actor uses physical force or coercion and severe personal injury is sustained by the victim;
(7) The victim is one whom the actor knew or should have known was physically helpless, mentally defective or mentally incapacitated.
Aggravated sexual assault is a crime of the first degree.

b. An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual contact with a victim who is less than 13 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the victim.
c. An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:
(1) The actor uses physical force or coercion, but the victim does not sustain severe personal injury;
(2) The victim is on probation or parole, or is detained in a hospital, prison or other institution and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary power over the victim by virtue of the actor's legal, professional or occupational status;
(3) The victim is at least 16 but less than 18 years old and:
(a) The actor is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree; or
(b) The actor has supervisory or disciplinary power of any nature or in any capacity over the victim; or
(c) The actor is a resource family parent, a guardian, or stands in loco parentis within the household;
(4) The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the victim.
Sexual assault is a crime of the second degree.

"Sexual penetration" means vaginal intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio or anal intercourse between persons or insertion of the hand, finger or object into the anus or vagina either by the actor or upon the actor's instruction. The depth of insertion shall not be relevant as to the question of commission of the crime;

Note the definition of sexual penetration all the way at the bottom, since that's the part that defines what sex is, as opposed to what makes the sex non consensual.

See the part where it states insertion of an object into the vagina? Stop supporting the rape of people who want abortions.

tzor wrote:
Guyr Adamantine wrote:Without consent, dipshit. I don't think you got that one part.
You have consent for the whole procedure. It's not like you have consent for every specific element in the procedure. You consent for the entire procedure and this step is merely one element in that procedure which is no more invasive than the procedure itself.

Actually, yes it's exactly like you have consent for every specific element of the procedure. If you do not consent to every element, than you did not consent. Now, if you signed a document, that states you consent to the whole procedure, but one part of that procedure is medically irrelevant, provides no benefits whatsoever, and is invasive, and your doctor did not inform you in advance that that one element is medically irrelevant, then you did not have informed consent, and therefore, you were fucking raped.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:36 am

Unrelated: So, if person A and person B break into a house with the intent to buglarize, but stop for a bit and have sex with each other before finishing, they have both committed aggravated sexual assault upon each other? Weird.

ETortoise · Post by **ETortoise** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:19 am

The requirement by law of this procedure* is simply the state saying "We control your vagina." If a woman doesn't listen to these misogynistic shitheads and abstain from sex, and then doesn't do what they want and carry an unwanted baby to term this requirement lets the state jump in at the last minute and say "Nu-uh bitch, we own you."

Any defense of this "element of a procedure"** is rooted in slut-shaming. It exactly the same as a rapist saying "I couldn't have raped her your honor, everyone knows she's easy."

*Rape
**Also rape

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:25 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Unrelated: So, if person A and person B break into a house with the intent to buglarize, but stop for a bit and have sex with each other before finishing, they have both committed aggravated sexual assault upon each other? Weird.

Just curious, but where the hell did you get that from?

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:34 am

PoliteNewb wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:Unrelated: So, if person A and person B break into a house with the intent to buglarize, but stop for a bit and have sex with each other before finishing, they have both committed aggravated sexual assault upon each other? Weird.
Just curious, but where the hell did you get that from?

Kaelik wrote:a. An actor is guilty of aggravated sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:
...
(3) The act is committed during the commission, or attempted commission, whether alone or with one or more other persons, of robbery, kidnapping, homicide, aggravated assault on another, burglary, arson or criminal escape;

I don't actually see any problems with it if we're being strictly technical. It's obviously (hopefully?) not how a judge would rule given how totally not the purpose of the law that is, but it sounds like having sex during a crime is aggravated sexual assault.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:35 am

DSMatticus wrote:
PoliteNewb wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:Unrelated: So, if person A and person B break into a house with the intent to buglarize, but stop for a bit and have sex with each other before finishing, they have both committed aggravated sexual assault upon each other? Weird.
Just curious, but where the hell did you get that from?

Kaelik wrote:a. An actor is guilty of aggravated sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:
...
(3) The act is committed during the commission, or attempted commission, whether alone or with one or more other persons, of robbery, kidnapping, homicide, aggravated assault on another, burglary, arson or criminal escape;
I don't actually see any problems with it if we're being strictly technical. It's obviously (hopefully?) not how a judge would rule given how totally not the purpose of the law that is, but it sounds like having sex during a crime is aggravated sexual assault.

Ah, my fault, missed that. Carry on.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:54 pm

tzor wrote:
PhoneLobster wrote:Face it. Tzor does not know the implications of any of his claims or demands, he does not CARE about the implications and he CERTAINLY feels absolutely NO moral or logical compulsion to be beholden to them in any shape or form.

Otherwise he would tell us what the fuck he wants to actually DO about abortions.
Now really, why in hell would I want to do that? I mean people who seriously cannot see how abortions in the case of the life of the mother doesn't qualify under a self defense argument would certainly not be the ones to have a discussion about the exact nature of a failure to implant discussion.

This is the forum where people insist that a sonogram is rape.

Lord knows what you think of protoscopes.

This isn't the right forum for such a discussion. I'm not that stupid.

Q.E.D.

You are all sick perverts.

You realize that argument to stupidy isn't a valid argument.

Once again Bevis and Butthead WIN (in their own minds).

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:16 pm

Oh look, at first Tzor said it was stupid to call a rape rape. Then when asked to give any argument for why, he said it didn't meet the definition. Then when he was given an actual criminal definition of rape from a criminal code, he called the argument stupid.

It's not because Tzor is a fucking coward who is clearly wrong, and that this is clearly rape, and that actual criminal definitions of rape and informed consent prove this. Can't be that.

He's just resorting to insulting us and pretending the last eight posts didn't happen for some other reason.

Tzor is a wrong coward who has absolutely no argument for the thing he keeps asserting. Big surprise.

violence in the media · Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:39 pm

Maybe we can propose a new angle on the abortion legal gymnastics and introduce legislation that will force anti-choice organizations to automatically foot the medical bills for all pregnancies that they bully women into carrying to term? Additionally, if the woman still chooses to not keep it, they're responsible for the adoption and care, etc.

This should be cool, right? I mean, we will have passed a law and everything. I wonder how long it would take to bankrupt those organizations under such policies?

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:52 pm

Let me tighten that up for you:

tzor wrote:I am a gigantic coward rape apologist

Q.E.D.

And, because I actually believe in answering people's points and not evading them:

tzor wrote: This is the forum where people insist that a sonogram is rape.

If you feel it is medically important to see your insides and you go to a doctor for that purpose, they aren't.

If they are done because some asshole in congress thinks they have a right to do one before you get your constitutional rights, they are.

This is clear to everyone but you, for some reason.

tzor wrote:Lord knows what you think of protoscopes.

About the same as I feel about transvaginal ultrasounds...fine in it's place, complete bullshit when used as a prerequisite for unrelated procedures.

If my doctor wanted to shove a scope in my ass before I could get my appendix out, I would call him a rapist too.

This isn't the right forum for such a discussion. I'm not that stupid.

"The right forum" being one where people agree with you?

tzor wrote:You realize that argument to stupidy isn't a valid argument.

The irony, it hurts me.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:29 pm

PoliteNewb wrote:
This isn't the right forum for such a discussion. I'm not that stupid.
"The right forum" being one where people agree with you?

He probably means right wing forum.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:55 pm

PoliteNewb wrote:"The right forum" being one where people agree with you?

No. The right forum is any place where people act civilized. Hell I'd much rather discuss this on Gather where 90% of the posters are pro-choice liberals than here. And I might make a few cents out of it.