Abortion ... the wiki

[Username17]

"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.

Dude, you advocated sending women who wanted abortions to rape rooms where they would have their vaginas violated with rods against their will and the advice of doctors. And then you openly scoffed at people who were justifiably horrified that you had said that. Then you denied that shoving something up a woman's vagina without their consent was rape. and to top it off, you're apparently not even trolling - just so gleeful about slut shaming that you're seriously willing to advocate rape rooms as public policy.

You've crossed just about every possible line of good taste. What is left for you to possibly say to offend the decorum of civilization that is worse than what you just did?

-Username17

[Stahlseele]

Probably something about age of consent.

[Whatever]

But Frank, at least he was civilized about it. Because we're aggressive and mean, instead of being passive-aggressive and whiny like we are supposed to be. And that means he can't talk to us anymore, except for the dozen-plus posts he's made in this thread, which don't count because we're wrong about everything.

[PoliteNewb]

"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.

So you're willing to post to shake your finger at us about how "uncivilized" we are, but not to defend yourself against accusations of being a rape apologist? Dude, your priorities are fucked up.

I'm perfectly willing to be civil. I have asked serious questions, and they require serious answers.

How exactly am I to be more "civilized" about the fact that you are being dismissive of sexual assault and unwilling to answer legitimate criticisms of this policy?

[tzor]

Dude, you advocated sending women who wanted abortions to rape rooms where they would have their vaginas violated with rods against their will and the advice of doctors.

PoliteNewb, the above statement is so far wrong, that I could literally spend pages explaining why almost every word is wrong in his sentence. And to make the whole thing a real fucking joke. And that includes even the words "advice of doctors" when we really means "the interests of the abortionist" who should't be given the dignity of being called a "doctor" especially in the way he is using it as in someone who treats the woman as a patient and not as the current customer in his operating room.

I mean we are talking about a surgical abortion here. This operation is a major violation of a woman's genital region. Yet somehow the small probe is considered rape and I'm justifying a rapist for a procedure.

The whole procedure is the equivalent of rape complete with significant changes of PTSD (65% may experience some form of PTSD.)

Of course with people like Frank, facts are something you can ignore when you can just call your opponent a rapist. The fact reamins that abortion is an extreemely violating procedure. To suggest that the probe is somehow far worse than the procedure itself is like calling the molehill the mountain and vice versa.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Calling genocide genocide is ruder than the actual genocide.

[sabs]

The operation is also VOLUNTARY.
noone gets tied down and forced to have an abortion. (in the US)
Abortions are not mandated by law.

that you cannot see the difference is.. typical.

[DSMatticus]

Let's run through Tzor's last post.
1) Failed to respond to the discussion at hand.
2) Still doesn't understand the concept of consent and coercion.
3) Linked to a religious, conservative abortion website for "factual information" which cites itself as a source for its own claims.

The fact reamins that abortion is an extreemely violating procedure.

Uhh, no, it isn't. That is not what violation means, you stupid fuckwit. When you seek a medical procedure, then get that medical procedure, you are not being violated. When you seek a medical procedure, but someone refuses to let you have that procedure until they stick random pointless shit in your vagina, that is you being violated. It is called coercion.

Tzor, hypothetical: I hate you, and I want you to suffer for being Tzor. I happen to come across a certain bit of legal power, so I decide to pass a law that requires that doctors stick something up your ass before they offer you any services whatsoever. If you want any medical services at any point in your life, you must subject yourself to being anally probed just because I hate you that much. You are totally free to go to the doctor and seek any service you want, on the condition that you subject yourself to arbitrary, pointless anal insertions of some vaguely medical object that has nothing to do with what you're asking the doctor to do.

Congratulations. You are now a woman in the State of Texas trying to get an abortion.

[PhoneLobster]

The fact reamins that abortion is an extreemely violating procedure.

Uhh, no, it isn't.

I think you will find he means that HE finds it extremely violating towards HIS desire to control and punish women.

I doubt he EVER considered any other angle on the matter.

And this whole thing where women have minds of their own and give consent or not is completely alien to him. Remember, he has already expressed that he does not believe women ARE giving consent to abortions as is and that it is in fact the filthy dirty DOCTORS who are responsible for the DECISIONS that cause abortions.

The women involved being incapable of making such decisions are merely strung along and confused by evil ABORTION DOCTORS and if Tzor and his friends rape and harass the women enough they will submit to his will instead! Since after all they lack a will of their own.

[PoliteNewb]

PoliteNewb, the above statement is so far wrong, that I could literally spend pages explaining why almost every word is wrong in his sentence.

I have a hard time believing that, so if you wish to convince me of it, you'd best spend at least a couple of paragraphs. People who claim "I could write pages on this IF I WANTED TO BUT I DON'T" strike me as liars, similar to people who claim they could write works better than Shakespeare if they bothered.

Frank was being the slightest bit hyperbolic (as he often is), but I find nothing at all factually wrong with what he says. If you believe it is wrong, you need to state that you do not support sending women to rooms where something will be inserted in their vagina against their will. If you do...you are supporting rape. Sticking something in a woman's vagina that she does not want there is the definition of rape.

And that includes even the words "advice of doctors" when we really means "the interests of the abortionist" who should't be given the dignity of being called a "doctor" especially in the way he is using it as in someone who treats the woman as a patient and not as the current customer in his operating room.

Dude, seriously? When doctors are performing procedures you approve of, it's "doctor and patient", but when they're performing procedures you don't like, it's "abortionist and customer"? What the fuck?

A doctor is a trained, licensed professional who performs medical procedures, no? The fact that you disapprove of abortions does not mean they are not a valid medical procedure, performed by licensed medical professionals, to deal with a medical condition (pregnancy). Trying to claim they shouldn't be called doctors is insane.
And no, it's NOT the "abortionist's" interest, unless you truly believe most women having abortions are doing so against their own will. If you do believe that, you're going to need to put up some serious evidence.

I mean we are talking about a surgical abortion here. This operation is a major violation of a woman's genital region. Yet somehow the small probe is considered rape and I'm justifying a rapist for a procedure.

How is this hard to understand: the key to rape is consent.
If I put my arm in a woman's vagina at her request for her sexual gratification, that is not rape.
If I put a pen in a woman's vagina (the same woman) when she does not want me to, I have raped her.
The size of the object is irrelevant.

If a woman wants an abortion, she can (as a practical and safety matter) have one without having a transvaginal ultrasound. A transvaginal ultrasound involves putting something in a woman's vagina. Many women do not want to have a transvaginal ultrasound (something put in their vagina). If you require them to submit to this when it is not necessary, in order to get a medical procedure they have a right to, you are using coercion to force them to allow you to put something in their vagina when they do not want you to.

THAT. IS. RAPE. Because she did not consent.

Of course with people like Frank, facts are something you can ignore when you can just call your opponent a rapist. The fact reamins that abortion is an extreemely violating procedure. To suggest that the probe is somehow far worse than the procedure itself is like calling the molehill the mountain and vice versa.

You have not presented any facts, so it's hard for them to matter. You have presented your opinion that an abortion is more of a rape than a transvaginal ultrasound...but since you are not a woman, and have never had an abortion OR a transvaginal ultrasound, I am reluctant to take your word on the matter. Since you apparently don't understand the basis of rape (lack of consent), I am even more inclined to ignore your bullshit opinions.

Let's see if progress has been made.

1.) I understand your position that an abortion is worse than a TransVag ultrasound. I have explained why it is crap. Is this clear?

2.) Do you understand now what the determining factor is in rape (in all rapes), namely, lack of consent to be penetrated?

[fbmf]

The only real issue here (and I am not a doctor so I am not really sure of the answer) is whether

(A) the TVU is being done in an attempt to guilt women who have decided to have an abortion to change their mind at the last minute, or

(B) does the TVU have some medical relevance and/or necessity.

If (A), that's pretty shitty. Even if it's not rape, you're just being one of those dangerous Christians that make the rest of us look bad to a woman at a time when that's the last thing she needs.

If (B), then I don't have an issue with it.

Game On,
fbmf

[Kaelik]

I'm extremely disappointed in you fbmf.

1) If A that's rape, no need for any qualifications about what it is if it isn't rape. In fact, just for fun:

Texas criminal codes:

(1) intentionally or knowingly:
(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person's consent;
(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person's consent; or
(C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person's consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor;

...

(b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if:

(8) the actor is a public servant who coerces the other person to submit or participate;
(9) the actor is a mental health services provider or a health care services provider who causes the other person, who is a patient or former patient of the actor, to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the actor;

So in addition to the more standard statements about coercion through force, a public servant coercing young women to consent is explicitly rape.

2) Do you really actually believe there is any chance at all that transvaginal ultrasound is medically necessary or relevant?
'
Things you are aware of:

1) There are other ways to obtain ultrasounds.
2) No state other than Texas requires trans vaginal ultrasounds prior to abortions.
3) Most states don't even require ultrasounds prior to abortions at all, and the only three are Texas, Oklahoma, and North Carolina.
4) All three of those states also require that the ultrasound be shown to and described to the patient. Texas requires an audible fetal heartbeat to be played. In Texas and Oklahoma, but not North Carolina, the woman is permitted to avert her eyes.

Now, are you really going to tell me that there is any reasonable doubt in your mind that this law was passed because anyone ever thought it was a medically relevant procedure to abortion?

Does any part of you really believe that at all?

PS to be fair to North Carolina and Oklahoma, they do not require transvaginal ultrasounds, so at least they aren't raping women when they attempt to convince then to keep the child.

[RobbyPants]

(A) the TVU is being done in an attempt to guilt women who have decided to have an abortion to change their mind at the last minute, or

(B) does the TVU have some medical relevance and/or necessity.

My understanding is that a TVU is sometimes necessary, but that's the exception, and not the rule. Doctors agree that in most cases, it's an unnecessary decision.

Now, I might want to give Texas the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe they're trying to be better safe than sorry, or something, but Perry called this a victory for life, so I'm guessing it was pretty much done just to guilt/shame women a little bit more.

[DSMatticus]

B is no.

But A is also no, because the procedure completely fails to change women's minds. And, as Kaelik's pointed out, even if that was the case it's still rape because you are using the medical procedure as coercion to force a woman to let you stick something in her vagina. Coercion of that nature makes consent legally impossible. It's rape.

But it is neither A or B, so it is:
I) A blatant attempt to punish abortion seekers with vaginal probing. The intent here makes this the exact definition of sexual violence. Also rape.
II) Or maybe it's just a strange new vaginal penetration tax on abortions. That makes sense, right?

[LargePrime]

(A) the TVU is being done in an attempt to guilt women who have decided to have an abortion to change their mind at the last minute, or

This is horribly wrong.

I do not fucken care who thinks it is ok to shame people, but doing so thru RAPE is no longer about shaming people into doing something. It is about punishing them using the LAW.

1) It changes no ones mind!

2) It is FORCED PENETRATION under law!

So fbmf, you are a fucktard!

[Zinegata]

Did you idiots all miss that fbmf thought option A) was shit if it were true?

[Neeeek]

So in addition to the more standard statements about coercion through force, a public servant coercing young women to consent is explicitly rape.

Huh. I'm now envisioning a cop going up to the governor's door and arresting him for thousands of counts of sexual assault and/or rape. Followed by every legislator who voted for it. That'd be pretty funny.

[Kaelik]

Did you idiots all miss that fbmf thought option A) was shit if it were true?

If it is true that Hitler systematically murdered millions of Jews, it's terrible and bad even if it isn't genocide.

Oh wait, that's stupid. A) We know Hitler did in fact do that. B) Yes, that is genocide.

So all the qualifications in that statement serve only to excuse Hitler and his genocide. Likewise, every qualification in fbmf's post serves to excuse raping women who want abortions.

[Zinegata]

So all the qualifications in that statement serve only to excuse Hitler and his genocide.

It was a question; not a statement.

[DSMatticus]

Did you idiots all miss that fbmf thought option A) was shit if it were true?

Kaelik's just being Kaeliky, but he's right, too; being ambivalent about calling it rape or not is kind of insulting to the magnitude of the shittiness. The fact that it is rape and it is shitty because it's rape is important, because there are alot of shitty things and very few quite as shitty as rape.

[Kaelik]

So all the qualifications in that statement serve only to excuse Hitler and his genocide.

It was a question; not a statement.

No it wasn't.

You asked a question about whether or not we know what fbmf said. Fbmf made a statement. Fbmf's statement included multiple qualifiers that have no effect other than to downplay the severity of the shittiness of this government enforced rape law.

All the qualifications in fbmf's statement are the ones I was referring to in my post. Because fbmf's statement has similarities to the example statement I made that downplays the shittiness of Hitler and the Holocaust.

Hence why I criticized fbmf for dissappointting me be including both the qualifiers that I criticized him for including, because the truth of the propositions:

a) these actions are rape.

and

b) this is not a medically relevant or required procedure

is not up for debate anymore in my mind, so absent a really good reason, anyone who pretends they are is being a fool.

[Zinegata]

fbmf made a statement. fbmf's statement included multiple qualifiers that have no effect other than to downplay the severity of the shittiness of this government enforced rape law.

Actually, it looked to me that he was asking about the contents of the law; not trying to downplay it.

[Username17]

Yeah, fbmf equivocated coercing women into having things stuffed up their vagina with coercing women to watch those stupid highlight reels of aborted fetuses. And he acknowledged that it was a shitty thing to do. And while i acknowledge that it is a shitty thing to do, the two are in no way equivalent. The highlight reel thing is just assaulting people with disgusting and pointless imagery with the expressed intent of making them feel bad. It's a bad thing to do, and utterly pointless since we don't ask people to be able to stomach watching an appendectomy in order to get an appendectomy. But you're not violating a woman's vagina without their consent by showing them gross images in order to make them feel bad. But coercing women to have things shoved up their vaginas against their will is still rape and will always be rape and thus merely showing grostequeries in picture form will never be anything close to the same level of intrusiveness or despicability.

So yes, fbmf was completely in the wrong. State sponsored rape is a lot more than mere rudeness, and playing it off as being merely antisocial is not OK. Fred Phelps does a lot of horrible things, but he doesn't rape women for doing things he doesn't like (to my knowledge). Seriously: this is Taliban shenanigans, it's way over the lines of simple bad social behavior that gives "moderate" Christians a bad name.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

I really, really don't think that fbmf's intent with that post is to say "It's not rape"; again it looks to be more of a question because he's not aware of the full details of the law.

[DSMatticus]

Note: when fbmf said "even if it's not rape, it's still shitty," that is a fairly ambiguous statement. It could mean:
I) "Even though that is definitely not rape, it is still shitty," or
II) "Diplomatically setting aside the rape argument, it is still at least somewhat shitty even if it is not rape," or
III) "I can't comfortably say what the result of the rape argument is, but whatever the result may be it is still somewhat shitty."

But pretty much everyone's response (except for a little bit of hyperbole from Frank about equivocation) plays equally well to all three interpretations. Statements like, "even if we can't all agree murdering jews is bad, we can at least all agree Hitler was a dick, right?" are offensively inappropriate understatements. Even if you're downplaying the severity of murdering jews/raping women to be diplomatic with neo-nazis/rapists, you are still downplaying the severity and that's not cool.

I personally thought he meant II, but now that you mention it I can see III. I can stand by my response either way, though; I was trying to be more informative about why the qualifiers are just bullshit than assholeish about him having used the qualifiers, so it ends up working anyway. Woot.