tzor wrote:
The basic arugment has to do with the conflict between fundamentally differing rights. The strongest case involves the direct threat to the mother. This is a case where the "right" to life is pitted against the "right" to life. Really you could argue both ways here,
You can. It's just that arguing one of the two ways makes you a heartless, thoughtless, misogynistic twat who's outsourced his moral conscience to an axis of assholes that runs from the Bible Belt straight to Tehran.
EDIT: Make that Ryadh. I just learned that Iranian abortion law is actually fairly rational.
tzor wrote:
but I can see the argument where the right of the mother trumps the right of the child.
Do you believe that qualifies you as an open-minded person?
I can't believe this thread.
Last edited by tenuki on Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Someone was making a statement about how black newborns make up some 35 to 40 percent of the adoption statistics, and black children are avoided to a great extent by adopters. It was likely quoted here, but I can't find it on the forums, and I was wondering if anyone had any links to the sources for such statistics.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
There is a push, both from Racist whites, and Racists Blacks not to have Black kids raised by white parents.
Most people who adopt, want a kid of the same 'race' as them. Those that go to other countries to adopt little chinese kids, or african kids, do so because they for the most part can't adopt in the US for what ever reason. Or the waiting period is too long for them.
* This does not include the anomaly that is Celebrity adoptions.
So apparently, sometime after it was pointed out that Komen hadn't cut ties to all kinds of other agencies that were under investigations and people started pulling donations to Komen and giving them to Planned Parenthood, Komen backed down.
LA Times wrote:Karen Handel, the vice president of public policy at Susan G. Komen for the Cure, has quit her post at the breast cancer charity; her move comes on the heels of the group’s reversal of it decision to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. In her letter of resignation, Handel, a conservative Republican who unsuccessfully ran for Georgia governor in 2010, said she had supported ending the funding of about $700,000. The charity ultimately decided to continue the grants after the cutoff sparked a nationwide furor fueled by social media such as Twitter and Facebook.
Yes, it was a brilliant move. Especially because it wasn't Karen Handel who made the policy. The person who made the policy to drop groups under investigation was a former aide of ... wait for it ... Nancy Pelosi.
RedState wrote:According to people close to the Komen Foundation I’ve spoken to, it was not Fleischer who was involved in the strategy and PR related to the Planned Parenthood decision, but rather Nancy Pelosi’s former press secretary and Ogilvy Public Relations executive Brendan Daly.
tzor wrote:Yes, it was a brilliant move. Especially because it wasn't Karen Handel who made the policy. The person who made the policy to drop groups under investigation was a former aide of ... wait for it ... Nancy Pelosi.
RedState wrote:According to people close to the Komen Foundation I’ve spoken to, it was not Fleischer who was involved in the strategy and PR related to the Planned Parenthood decision, but rather Nancy Pelosi’s former press secretary and Ogilvy Public Relations executive Brendan Daly.
The "policy" wasn't followed and still hasn't been followed. Komen didn't apply their policy to Penn State (investigation into child sexual abuse). Or to Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (investigation into the poisoning death of an employee). Or to Duke University Medical Center Organ Donation Center (investigation into improper financial relationship with financiers). And so on.
In fact, the "policy" doesn't seem to exist at all, and was simply a cover created by Karen Handel for the actual policy of "cutting funding to Planned Parenthood". But in any case, someone who may have worked for Nancy Pelosi isn't even on the list of suspects. The whole investigation criteria started and ended at Karen Handel. You know, the woman who was forced to resign when people called her on her bullshit.
On a related note, if they'd just been up front about politics having something everything to do with it rather than making up the stupid under investigation excuse, would there have been such a fallout? I can see it not being popular but would she have been forced to resign over it?
I suspect this one was just too obviously political for people to miss. This isn't to say the Komen Foundation hasn't always been a bunch of right-wing, corporate-fellating bullshit; it has. But they maintain a decent illusion of an apolitical charity, and going after abortion so blatantly turned out to be a shot to the credibility they've carefully manufactured.
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.
I'm going to raise this quote up from the dead and for a moment gloat in the truth that you fucking fuckers don't know what the fuck you are fucking.
Alana Goodman of Commentary magazine says Planned Parenthood provides the following on a telephone hotline:
“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.
Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”
“From a health perspective, these ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies. In clinics that don’t have access to ultrasound technology, sometimes pelvic exams can be used as a substitute. But those are arguably just as invasive as the transvaginal ultrasounds pro-choice activists are decrying,” Goodman writes. “In other words, the real reason pro-choicers oppose the law isn’t because of the “invasiveness” or “creepiness” of ultrasounds. It can’t be it. Virginia Planned Parenthood clinics already include them in its abortion procedures.”
That's nice that the author of the article didn't specify the type of ultrasound being done, that doesn't create confusion at all. I am going out and say that she doesn't know that are various types of ultrasounds.
Last edited by Leress on Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
I want him to tongue-punch my box.
]
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
"From a health perspective, these ultrasounds are critical. "
Think about that sentence really carefully. Ultrasounds are being performed for HEALTH REASONS. The new law has no health justification. Do you see the difference between them? Its kinda like the difference between having sex with someone and raping them; same equipment, but different intent.
Man, I actually had to register and stop lurking, your post irritated me so damn much. You just made the list.
Planned Parenthood website wrote:How Is an Ultrasound Done?
There are two ways to do an ultrasound — through the abdomen or through the vagina. Ultrasounds may be performed by your health care provider or by a trained ultrasound technician.
During an abdominal ultrasound, your provider will place the ultrasound wand on your abdomen, using a small amount of gel to help lubricate the area. You may feel pressure during the exam, but it is not painful.
During a vaginal ultrasound, your provider will insert the ultrasound wand into the vagina. This may feel similar to a vaginal exam. You may feel pressure during the exam, but it is not painful.
DSMatticus wrote:It's not just that everything you say is stupid, but that they are Gordian knots of stupid that leave me completely bewildered as to where to even begin. After hearing you speak Alexander the Great would stab you and triumphantly declare the puzzle solved.
The necessity of a trans-vaginal ultrasound depends on some factors - the age of the fetus (fetuses that are only a few weeks old can be too small to be picked up via normal ultrasound), and the weight of the mother (overweight can make a normal ultrasound difficult) are the primary two that I've heard of, but other reasons include ectopic pregnancy and checking out the health of the placenta.
trans-vaginal ultrasounds do have genuine medical uses.
Rectal exams also have medical uses. There are times when it is right and important to have one. But if there was a law, saying that before you obtained treatment for male pattern baldness, you needed a rectal exam. That would turn it from a medically necessary thing, to government mandated rape.
Tzor is just crazy and stupid.
Also the article somehow seems to think that /all/ ultrasounds are transvaginal. Which is bullshit, because the vast majority of ultrasounds are in fact, not.
sabs wrote:Also the article somehow seems to think that /all/ ultrasounds are transvaginal. Which is bullshit, because the vast majority of ultrasounds are in fact, not.
Actually, it's a more retarded version of lying.
Basically, they are pointing to the Virgina bill that has been amended to remove the requirement of transvaginal ultrasound, and pretending that because the bill has been amended, all those women who called this rape are just out of control, and are overreacting to forcing the mother to look at an ultrasound.
Basically, present a bill tomorrow that requires all Jews to be put in camps, change your mind from public pressure, remove that from the bill, and then complain about how all the Jews are overreacting because it's not like you are putting them in camps.
One of the lovely things about the Den (and utopian liberals in general) is that facts are seldom needed or discussed because it’s easy to just pull out catch phrases and scream loudly.
It has been mentioned that the article does not specifically mention the type of ultrasound.
Then again, in both cases neither did the law.
The type is based on the medical conditions, especially the potential age of the fetus.
But that has never stopped the liberal utopians from crying “it’s not medically needed” when abortion clinics clearly think it is or that it is “rape” when abortion clinics clearly do it all the time. The real question is giving that information to the patient.
In the end the only “choice” a pro-choice person wants is an un-informed “KILL IT.”
P.S. To RobbyPants: I only appear stupid in your eyes. Clearly, you need new eyes.
In its current form, Virginia’s bill requires that the ultrasound find and monitor the fetal heartbeat and provide an image of the shape of the fetus. As in other states with ultrasound laws, this will often require a probe to be inserted into the vagina. The nonintrusive abdominal ultrasound, on the other hand, often cannot capture the fetus at its small size in the first trimester, when most abortions are performed.
11 A. Before performing any abortion or inducing any miscarriage or terminating a pregnancy as
12 provided in §§ 18.2-72, 18.2-73 or § 18.2-74, the physician shall obtain the informed written consent of
13 the pregnant woman. However, if the woman has been adjudicated incapacitated by any court of
14 competent jurisdiction or if the physician knows or has good reason to believe that such woman is
15 incapacitated as adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, then only after permission is given in
16 writing by a parent, guardian, committee, or other person standing in loco parentis to the woman, may
17 the physician perform the abortion or otherwise terminate the pregnancy.
18 B. Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 24 hours before the performance of an
19 abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct
20 supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and
21 auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of
22 determining gestational age. If the pregnant woman lives at least 100 miles from the facility where the
23 abortion is to be performed, the fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services
24 shall be performed at least two hours before the abortion. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant
25 to standard medical practice in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately
26 portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable.
27 Determination of gestational age shall be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent
28 with standard medical practice in the community in determining gestational age. When only the
29 gestational sac is visible during ultrasound imaging, gestational age may be based upon measurement of
30 the gestational sac. A print of the ultrasound image shall be made to document the measurements that
31 have been taken to determine the gestational age of the fetus.
32 C. The qualified medical professional performing fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant to subsection B
33 shall offer the woman an opportunity to view and receive a printed copy of the ultrasound image and
34 hear auscultation of fetal heart tone and shall obtain from the woman written certification that this
35 opportunity was offered and whether or not it was accepted and, if applicable, verification that the
36 pregnant woman lives at least 100 miles from the facility where the abortion is to be performed. A
37 printed copy of the ultrasound image shall be maintained in the woman's medical record at the facility
38 where the abortion is to be performed for the longer of (i) seven years or (ii) the extent required by
39 applicable federal or state law.
is the texas bill.
It does not specifically require a trans vaginal ultrasound. Except that the requirements for what the ultra sound must show, pretty much require a trans vaginal ultrasound in any first and early second trimester abortion.
key part:
the physician who is to perform the abortion provides, in a manner understandable to a layperson, a verbal explanation of the results of the sonogram images, including a medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, and the presence of external members and internal organs;
Both the highlighted parts are pretty much impossible with a regular ultrasound.
Last edited by sabs on Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yeah; the bill requires that the women be given a ridiculous and complete description of the fetus that is totally unnecessary and whose sole purpose is to punish women with guilt and/or shame for seeking an abortion. The law has no other possible purpose. There are zero. None. Zilch. Now, in the process of punishing women in this way, the law requires vaginal penetration due to the detail which the description requires, which brings it from a legislatively mandated guilt-trip attempt to flat-out rape.
If you find yourself suggesting that something should be shoved in a woman's vagina as part of your attempt to punish them for their behaviors, you are a deranged monster.
