Abortion ... the wiki

[RobbyPants]

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... navpanes=0

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.

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. I read through it and couldn't find anything specific.

I think other people are using that the actual phrase "transvaginal ultrasound" doesn't appear in the law's text to claim that pro-choice proponents are just lying. At least, that's the gist I got while trying to find the law's text in the first place.

[Taishan]

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.

ok I'll ignore the snarky attitude of your post and ask you to provide evidence that any doctor or clinic in Virginia thinks that the determination of the gestational age of the fetus 24 hours before an abortion is medically needed.

I think you're confused with the fact that clinics and doctors do perform TVU or ultrasounds in general with the idea that they are performed with a purpose. No one here is disagreeing that they are performed in clinics; after all, a sonogram on the belly is probably the easiest way to confirm that you are pregnant and might want an abortion (easiest != fool proof, but some cold gel and a magic wand over your belly is pretty damn easy). Everyone IS confused about how you can not understand how intent of an action dictates its morality, ie, sonogram to determine if you are pregnant vs. a sonogram to guilt you into not having an abortion.

[tzor]

ok I'll ignore the snarky attitude of your post and ask you to provide evidence that any doctor or clinic in Virginia thinks that the determination of the gestational age of the fetus 24 hours before an abortion is medically needed.

You need to determine the age of the fetus in order to determine how much matter you are going to need to remove. You also need to determine if you are in the right place. It's kind of embarrasing to scrape an empty place only to find out it's an etopic pregnancy and the fetus is stuck in a fellopian tube. So yes, there is a real reason.

You see the patient and often perform the surgery on the same day.

First trimester abortions aren't "medially needed" unless it's an etopic and then the only way you can tell that is an ultrasound.

[DSMatticus]

There's that thing again, where Tzor pretends transvaginal ultrasounds and ultrasounds are the same thing.

[PhoneLobster]

So anyway, I'll note in his latest convolutions to make excuses for his repressed sadomasochistic rape fantasies Tzor has effectively stated that he believes that abortions are a medical procedure that is entirely unnecessary for someone who doesn't want to be pregnant.

And is trying to connect the dots on that rather miserly definition of medical necessity with the total lack of necessity of dildo raping abortion patients.

What I note is that Tzor has STILL totally failed to even acknowledge the existence of the COERCION aspect of his much wanked over dildo rapes.

And he totally fails to even acknowledge that it is BOTH lack of medical necessity AND the Coercion that makes it a form of grievous assault.

This is REALLY fantastic because it means Tzor is actually telling us that medically unnecessary procedures, like say nose jobs or boob implants, are totally fucking OK and what? Is the patient willing or being coerced? DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE MENTIONING OR THINKING ABOUT.

Which is fucking awesome because it means Tzor is effectively stating if he (or perhaps she) wakes up one morning to find he was the recipient of a medically unnecessary "surprise' sex change over night. Well fuck it, whatever, it's not like it was rape or assault because Coercion, and willing agreement mean NOTHING to him on this matter.

[violence in the media]

First trimester abortions aren't "medially needed" unless it's an etopic and then the only way you can tell that is an ultrasound.

They are if you are unwilling to take your chances on a natural abortion and don't want to wind up with a new kid in several months.

[RobbyPants]

So, we've established that:

[*]TVUs aren't medically necessary in most circumstances, and even then, it's up to the physician to determine.

[*]Even though the Texas law doesn't explicitly state TVUs, they're implying it based on the sonogram requirements built into the law (based on the age of the fetus).

[*]This makes the use of TVU in every instance unnecessary, which is where we get into coercion.

And Tzor seems to be conveniently ignoring these points, or at least dances around them one at a time, rather than looking at the issue as a whole. Did I miss anything, or does that about sum it up?

I suppose I did leave out the part where he rather smuggly lied to us about the ins and outs of the law, but I could see where he might have been legitimately confused because the law doesn't "explicitly" state TVU.

[tzor]

First trimester abortions aren't "medially needed" unless it's an etopic and then the only way you can tell that is an ultrasound.

They are if you are unwilling to take your chances on a natural abortion and don't want to wind up with a new kid in several months.

Doesn't sound "medically needed" to me. Most definitions are based on the life and health of the woman. Not the desire not to have a kid in several months.

[tzor]

So, we've established that:

[*]TVUs aren't medically necessary in most circumstances, and even then, it's up to the physician to determine.

[*]Even though the Texas law doesn't explicitly state TVUs, they're implying it based on the sonogram requirements built into the law (based on the age of the fetus).

[*]This makes the use of TVU in every instance unnecessary, which is where we get into coercion.

And Tzor seems to be conveniently ignoring these points, or at least dances around them one at a time, rather than looking at the issue as a whole. Did I miss anything, or does that about sum it up?

The texas law may have detailed requirements that are above and beyond the normal standard medical practice for sonograms in those conditions. Somehow I think that there is a light year of difference between "isn't this law a bit too detailed and strict" and "OMG it's fucking rape!" The former is a reasonable argument, the later is a shotgun attempt at stopping all rational thought and argument.

But it's still the exact same fucking argument they are using on the Virginia law. To them all sonigrams even when they don't indirectly imply that TVU is the only way to get the detail required is RAPE!

And I will continue to maintain that it is not RAPE. Forcing to use one type of ultrasound when another would do because of a legal technicality is wrong, but it's still not RAPE.

[sabs]

Forcing someone to have an 8" plastic probe shoved into a body cavity sounds pretty Rape like to me.

[Username17]

As is often the case when the moral implications of a piece of public policy are extremely clear, The Daily Show gives a pretty good rundown.

-Username17

[violence in the media]

First trimester abortions aren't "medially needed" unless it's an etopic and then the only way you can tell that is an ultrasound.

They are if you are unwilling to take your chances on a natural abortion and don't want to wind up with a new kid in several months.

Doesn't sound "medically needed" to me. Most definitions are based on the life and health of the woman. Not the desire not to have a kid in several months.

What? No, fuck that. I am totally okay with someone using abortion inefficiently as the birth control of last resort. A woman can elect to have an abortion for any reason she wants, and any rights or concerns you want to assign to the fetus are irrelevant in light of that. Why? Because, assuming sufficient motivation on her part, that pregnancy will be aborted and nothing you can do will prevent that. The only question you have to answer is how much pain and misery do you want to spread around by requiring increasingly desperate measures on the part of women that want abortions.

Besides, if you're such a devout nutter and abortion is such a sin, why don't you not have one and let your god sort things out for the people that do? Don't give me any bullshit about having a positive duty to intervene either.

Here's an i09 article about reproductive rights in science fiction that's related to this discussion.

[RobbyPants]

The texas law may have detailed requirements that are above and beyond the normal standard medical practice for sonograms in those conditions. Somehow I think that there is a light year of difference between "isn't this law a bit too detailed and strict" and "OMG it's fucking rape!" The former is a reasonable argument, the later is a shotgun attempt at stopping all rational thought and argument.

But it's still the exact same fucking argument they are using on the Virginia law. To them all sonigrams even when they don't indirectly imply that TVU is the only way to get the detail required is RAPE!

And I will continue to maintain that it is not RAPE. Forcing to use one type of ultrasound when another would do because of a legal technicality is wrong, but it's still not RAPE.

If people were just saying "rape" for shock value, I'd completely agree with you, but they're talking about unnecessarily inserting things in women's vaginas under coercion. That sounds like rape.

The procedure is unnecessary, so forcing it is coercing people to consenting to get the treatment they actually came for. The unnecessary procedure involves vaginal insertion. I don't see the logical disconnect, here.

What part are you arguing about?
[*]The procedure isn't medically necessary.
[*]Forcing someone to do A when they want B isn't coercion, when A is unnecessary.
[*]Coerced vaginal insertion isn't rape.
[*]Something else?

[tzor]

The procedure may be unnecessary. (Then again, there are a lot of CYA procedures one has to take that may be unnecessary.) Requiring the procedure may be inconvenient. It may require the insertion of something into the vagina (but does not require the insertion of anything through the cervix which is required for all surgical abortions and is a whole magnitude more obtrusive than the above said procedure). The procedure has absolutely nothing to do with an attack of raw force against a helpless victim and therefore to even call it rape is a gross insult to the many real victims of rape.

[RobbyPants]

The procedure may be unnecessary. (Then again, there are a lot of CYA procedures one has to take that may be unnecessary.) Requiring the procedure may be inconvenient. It may require the insertion of something into the vagina (but does not require the insertion of anything through the cervix which is required for all surgical abortions and is a whole magnitude more obtrusive than the above said procedure). The procedure has absolutely nothing to do with an attack of raw force against a helpless victim and therefore to even call it rape is a gross insult to the many real victims of rape.

Yes, Tzor, but they don't have to perform the procedure to determine if it's necessary. The physician can determine that ahead of time.

The whole 100% ultrasound mandate is unnecessary. It's not like the doctor has to give the ultrasound to find out they didn't need to give one in the first place.

So, that covers the first bullet point. Anything else?

[Kaelik]

absolutely nothing to do with an attack of raw force against a helpless victim

Good thing that's not the definition of rape then.

[DSMatticus]

The procedure has absolutely nothing to do with an attack of raw force against a helpless victim and therefore to even call it rape is a gross insult to the many real victims of rape.

Physical force is not a requirement for rape. You just insulted a huge number of rape victims by refusing to acknowledge that the crimes committed against them were actually even rape. You can't play the "insulting rape victims" card when you don't even know what rape actually is.

[tzor]

absolutely nothing to do with an attack of raw force against a helpless victim

Good thing that's not the definition of rape then.

I suppose, because it's a sloppy collection of words.

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.

Rape is defined as sexual intercourse forced on a person without his or her permission, either by threat of force or on someone who is unable to give consent.

Sexual intercourse may be vaginal, anal, or oral, and may involve the use of a body part or an object.

Rape is not about sex. All rape is a deliberate act of physical, emotional or psychological violence by one person against another.

Rape has nothing to do with sex. Rape is purely an act of violence and control. Plain and simple, violence and control are the key goals of most rapists. The criminal wishes to control the victim and, most times, the criminal exerts that control through violence or threats or both at once. Only once one realizes that rape has nothing to do with sex can one finally come to understand what rape really is.

I think I have covered a wide range of angles to show what rape is. If you wish to belittle the term with your trite use of it, I can clearly see you don't give a fuck for those people who have suffered from the violence that is "rape." It is all about violence and controll.

[Kaelik]

Or alternatively Tzor, we can ask whether or not the women consented to the penetration in question. And of course, then we can look at how the issue of consent that is coerced works (hint, it doesn't).

Or you know, we could look at the actual rape statutes of the states in question. Oh wait, I already fucking did that:

And the result was that the Texas Criminal codes specifically provide that when a public servant uses their position as a public servant to coerce a woman to accepting penetration, that by law she has not consented.

Therefore, according to the Texas Criminal Codes, these women have not consented to this penetration, and it is therefore rape.

[PoliteNewb]

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent.

Rape is defined as sexual intercourse forced on a person without his or her permission, either by threat of force or on someone who is unable to give consent.

Sexual intercourse may be vaginal, anal, or oral, and may involve the use of a body part or an object.

Rape is not about sex. All rape is a deliberate act of physical, emotional or psychological violence by one person against another.

Rape has nothing to do with sex. Rape is purely an act of violence and control. Plain and simple, violence and control are the key goals of most rapists. The criminal wishes to control the victim and, most times, the criminal exerts that control through violence or threats or both at once. Only once one realizes that rape has nothing to do with sex can one finally come to understand what rape really is.

I think I have covered a wide range of angles to show what rape is. If you wish to belittle the term with your trite use of it, I can clearly see you don't give a fuck for those people who have suffered from the violence that is "rape." It is all about violence and control.

Can you even hear yourself?

[RobbyPants]

Or you know, we could look at the actual rape statutes of the states in question.

Exactly. No one cares about dictionary definitions when there are laws on the books and we're talking about legal definitions.

[DSMatticus]

Even the dictionary definitions don't support what Tzor is babbling about, but Tzor's literacy is selective.

[Neeeek]

Doesn't sound "medically needed" to me. Most definitions are based on the life and health of the woman. Not the desire not to have a kid in several months.

Being pregnant at all is not good for a woman's health.

[tzor]

Doesn't sound "medically needed" to me. Most definitions are based on the life and health of the woman. Not the desire not to have a kid in several months.

Being pregnant at all is not good for a woman's health.

No, that is not correct. One may argue that getting pregnant might not be good for a woman's health (and even then I'm not even sure you can argue that in the long term - both the use of period preventing contraceptives and simply allowing periods to occur without pregnancies might have long term medical risks associated with them) but it is clear from a number of prrespectives that the premature termination of a pregnancy does pose significant long term health risks to the woman.

[Whatever]

The FBI recently updated their definition of rape:

The Uniform Crime Report’s (UCR) ... new definition is more inclusive, better reflects state criminal codes and focuses on the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape. The new definition of rape is: “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The definition is used by the FBI to collect information from local law enforcement agencies about reported rapes.

That's about as close to a nationwide definition as you're going to get.