tzor wrote:Here is the basic argument (it's near lunch and I have priorities). There are many proedures that require other preminary procedures. If you want the procedure you need to go through the preliminary procedures. You are not forced because it is you wanting the procedure in the first place.
This is true, provided you are provided with all materially relevant information about any preliminary procedures. That's why it's called informed consent. If the doctors fail to provide you with materially relevant information, such as but not limited to, what the medical benefits of the procedure are, then you did not consent to the preliminary procedure.
It is possible to consent to the standard procedure without some of the preliminary procedures, even if it is rarely done. If a patient refuses to consent to general anesthetic, but does consent to amputation, you still have to amputate them, but you can't use anesthesia.
tzor wrote:Frank's whole argument is entirely with the vagina. If the sonogram device was deployed through the anus would his argument hold? (And yes, you can do that, that's how it's done with prostrate biopsies because guys don't have vaginas to put the probe into.) Of course that would be stupid for several reasons the most important is that the position for that would be different than the position for the later abortion.
Yes that would also be rape, provided that you did not consent to the procedure. Since you have not been informed of it's medical benefits (none) therefore you cannot be consenting to it.
Because the definition of rape in the Texas criminal Code includes any time any object is inserted into a vagina or anus without consent.
tzor wrote:We can certainly discuss whether it is really necessary, whether it places exceptional inconvenience (within the context of the pending abortion), and so on, but repeating a constant "rape" charge is not helping a discussion.
We already did that. It is not necessary. Having established that, we then turn to whether or not the woman consents. We see again, that she did not give uncoerced consent. Having established the insertion of an object into someone's vagina without consent, we correctly recognized it as rape. That does help, because it starkly contrasts this unacceptable behavior with acceptable behavior.
tzor wrote:No, seriously. When doctors are performing procedures for the sake of the procedure and not specifically for the immediate medical needs of the patient there is a tendency for the doctor to side more with the procedure than the patient.
I suppose I'm going to need an example that is not abortion. The best example I can think of is liposuction.
Florida bill seeks to rein in liposuctions
Now I am not going to paint these doctors as butchers, but in their narrow minded pursuit of their specific procedure they often may not consider the other factors that involve the procedure. This is one reason why hospitals work around boards and set up systems of checks and balances so that narrow vision doesn't impact patient health.
Back to the abortion, the abortionist is only interested in performing the abortion procedure. The abortionist is not interested in the long term health of the woman, the physchological conditions of the woman, or anythig else other than the quick and successful application of the procedure. Any thing that might prevent the quick and successful completion of the proceure would logically be annoying for that doctor.
You cannot read minds Tzor. You have no evidence for any of these claims. Abortionists are concerned with the long term health of the woman. It just turns out that both abortionists and the women in question disagree with you about what is in their long term interest. You don't get to make that decision. Abortionists have medical degrees, and experience, and the knowledge to determine whether a transvaginal ultrasound provides any use at all. They have determined that it doesn't. They can then inform the women getting abortions of the procedure, and their recommendation, and then the women make their own final decisions, because they are the ones who get to make that decision.
Now honestly, you don't think that the transvaginal ultrasound has any chance of being important to the long term health of the woman. When you are complaining about abortionists not thinking about the long term health of the woman, you are really talking about going through with the abortion. And that would be fine, if you were making an argument for why someone else should evaluate whether or not the woman should have an abortion. But someone else already does make that decision. The woman. It is not okay however, to allow your belief that women should not get abortions to cause you to advocate for the rape of women prior to their abortions, in the hope that it will dissuade them. If you advocated for forced ultrasounds, that were not transvaginal, or for the Washington law that forces Doctors to show ultrasounds to the patients if they do one for some other reason, you would still be wrong in my eyes, but at least you wouldn't be specifically advocating for a law that rapes women.
tzor wrote:Once again, if you drop the "rape" chant and actually consider whether or not the inconvenience is worth the rewards you might have a better chance for a resonable discussion.
We did that. The inconvenience of raping every woman who wants an abortion is not worth the "rewards" of possibly discouraging a very small number of abortions and traumatizing women into possibly not having more.
I but rewards in quotation marks because neither of those things are actually rewards to me, even though they are to you.
The rape "chant" where we gave you a definition of rape, and then showed how the law meets every element of that definition, is an important factor in the cost-benefit analysis. Whether or not you are raping someone by your actions should always be an important factor in any decision making process.
