The comparison to dildo-rape is in response to someone aborting a fetus from rape itself. It's not exactly all happy kittens that now someone has to associate a metal wand up their cooch with their rape experience. They're pretty similar things, I hear.
Transvaginal ultrasounds are pretty much, 100% unnecessary. Transabdominal ultrasounds produce better images almost always. Unless you're a fucking whale.
You don't need an ultrasound to have an abortion to begin with. That's why there's such emotion behind the responses behind the use of metal-dildo rape for the abortion of the alien-parasite-symbiote. There is absolutely no reason for it.
Not sure why rectal ultrasounds are being discussed here now.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Yar,
as far as I'm concerned you're not forcing them to"confront the emotional reality" you're creating an emotional reality out of whole cloth. If doctors and psychologists agreed that seeing an ultrasound before the abortion was good for emotional health then they could offer it as an option, but I see no evidence whatsoever that they have reached that conclusion, this bill was written for entirely different reasons.
Even if this procedure wasn't sometimes physically invasive and a waste of medical resources (good reasons to be against it) I would be against it anyways because it is about shaming women who want abortions.
When people go for other elective procedures the government doesn't force them to endure unnecessary medical procedures.
Why is it acceptable in this particular instance and no others?
Calling it "unnecesary" is a very sensible point to make. Calling it invasive dildo rape, committed to satisfy the desires of lawmakers' husbands, to shame the sluts of the world, is fucking insane and fails to comprehend much at all of the mainstream anti-abortion sentiment. Also note that the bill only required an ultrasound, and a transvaginal one only if the abdominal one could not produce an image. And we're talking about looking at the thing that is about to be removed, so I don't quite see how grossly unrelated it is. It isn't prescribing ambien for a cold. It's asking you to say "ahh" and sticking the depressor on your tongue when you've already told him you have a sore throat you want cleared up. Or, rather, it isn't anything that an analogy would cover very well. It is what it is - an ultrasound to to see and describe the fetus before removing it.
It's an entirely necessary invasive medical test, that removes control over what gets inserted into a woman's vagina. A reasonable person might see an issue in this. Especially when this vaginal ultrasound is required even in rape victims. There's absolutely no medical justification for requiring an ultrasound during an early term pregnancy. None at all. This is medical instruction from the legislature, and excuse me if I tell them to go fuck themselves until they earn an MD and the right to weigh in on medical matters.
Like I said before - if such a procedure actually did result in a significant number of women changing their minds about the procedure... well... I can't see how a medical examination and the resulting information leading to a different decision isn't a thing one might ought to consider, regardless of the political nature of the issue in this case. More info -> different decision? Well then, more info. And, proof that this examination is not unrelated. However, if this isn't the case, and instead this is only more likely to increase the (likely already present) negative emotions involved, and isn't necessary, then it would only be cruel.
You have absolutely no idea how an abortion clinic works, this much is clear. Why don't you go down and ask some people who work at one how they counsel a woman seeking an abortion?
My point is my disdain and disbelief for raving about a procedure which is entirely normal and common for all pregnant women visiting a doctor, but since the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy, suddenly it's dildo-rape levels of invasiveness and evil and has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything except evil men shaming sluts. I think it would be safe for us to assume that the intent of this law was to try and force a mother to confront the emotional reality of what she's doing even further than she already has, in a way that might change her mind. While this still may not agree with your morals, it is more reasonable to assume that this was the intent of the law, and few if any involved were actually motivated by a desire to humilitate and dildo-rape women to punish them for their sluttiness.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, that much is clear.
I've had two kids and I was in the room for this stuff. I'm pretty sure I'm more familiar with it than most here, but feel free to share your superior knowledge. Or, just quote me in red and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and have no clue, because that is doing wonders for my opinion of how well people are actually able to discuss this topic without losing their sanity.
Why is it acceptable in this particular instance and no others?
Obviously it isn't acceptable. In particular, not to the Governor. It doesn't really seem necessary, and there are lots of extra emotions and sensitivities involved when it comes to hoo-hoos, so I understand why people would rather this not go through. I am fairly certain, though, that people behind legislation like this have it in their head that a woman will hear the heartbeat, and see arms and legs and fingers, or hear them described, and then change their mind and abort the abortion. That is their motivation, a motivation at least as accessible to the pro-life female as it is to the pro-life male. I am also even more certain that this is not motivated by any desire to perform sexual torture on women or otherwise punish them for presumed immoral behavior, at least not by any but the most sick and extreme minority, and that people who think otherwise have quite a chasm to cross in their comprehension of human beings.
Yar, it is very important for you to realize that people that disagree with me on this subject are avatars of evil with the worst possible intentions, and to suggest those intentions are any different makes you the kin of evil, with obviously horrible intentions.
I've had two kids and I was in the room for this stuff. I'm pretty sure I'm more familiar with it than most here, but feel free to share your superior knowledge. Or, just quote me in red and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and have no clue, because that is doing wonders for my opinion of how well people are actually able to discuss this topic without losing their sanity.
Why is it acceptable in this particular instance and no others?
Obviously it isn't acceptable. In particular, not to the Governor. It doesn't really seem necessary, and there are lots of extra emotions and sensitivities involved when it comes to hoo-hoos, so I understand why people would rather this not go through. I am fairly certain, though, that people behind legislation like this have it in their head that a woman will hear the heartbeat, and see arms and legs and fingers, or hear them described, and then change their mind and abort the abortion. That is their motivation, a motivation at least as accessible to the pro-life female as it is to the pro-life male. I am also even more certain that this is not motivated by any desire to perform sexual torture on women or otherwise punish them for presumed immoral behavior, at least not by any but the most sick and extreme minority, and that people who think otherwise have quite a chasm to cross in their comprehension of human beings.
So you are telling us that your partner had transvaginal ultrasounds with both of your kids? Because that isn't standard. I've gone with several of my friends and family members for both dating and structural ultrasounds and they were all done transabdominally. Transvaginal ultrasounds are superior for visualizing the ovaries (not a concern during pregnancy), visualizing the thickness of the endometrium (not a concern during pregnancy) and checking the length of the cervix (yes this is a concern during pregnancy but not at all for women seeking abortions).
And your argument about what pro-life people hope is rather disingenuous as there simply isn't a heartbeat or fingers or toes at 8 weeks when most abortions are performed. I buy that some of them are horribly horribly misinformed about stuff like this, but I think the sick and extreme minority is larger than you might think.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
Pretty sure Yar is just trolling for attention at this point. He doesn't feel the need to do more then quote-mine and write voluminous, inflammatory paragraphs based on how women have no idea! about what a fetus looks like, and need to have it waved in front of their face before the abortion.
Once again, the legislature just knows better then the women about their own bodies and their own reproductive system. It sure is wonderful that these noble statesmen are there to guide the stupid women to the correct decision.
I mean the single most telling part of these bills is that they're all designed to shame or harass a woman seeking an abortion, and none of them are designed to expand the social support services for pregnant women, or new families.
Ah, back to making a basic effort in here. Good, I was starting to think you'd lost your edge!
You're being hugely disingenuous, Yar, in stating that the intentions of the people writing that law were in any way pure. Even if you don't subscribe to the slut-shaming aspects of the law (which are there whether you want them to be or not, because antichoicers are well-documented as having massive massive sexual hangups), you don't get to act like the law isn't an underhanded attempt to manipulate the emotions of the patient in such a way as to cloud her decision making. The scan doesn't provide any additional information pertinent to the decision about whether to continue the pregnancy. Hell, it won't even provide an image of a recognisable fetus in the early stages, so forget the fingers and toes argument (although, how you don't see that as emotional manipulation, I don't know).
And of course, in all this you're still ignoring the economic effects of this legislation on poor women. The law is such that many of them wouldn't actually get to have the ultrasound or the abortion because suddenly the cost would have doubled!
But yeah, what Rob said. I know you don't even believe your own bullshit, because you've posted as much before. So thanks for making more of an effort than previously, but.... bored now.
I am fairly certain, though, that people behind legislation like this have it in their head that a woman will hear the heartbeat, and see arms and legs and fingers, or hear them described, and then change their mind and abort the abortion. That is their motivation, a motivation at least as accessible to the pro-life female as it is to the pro-life male.
Yar:
Forcing someone to have a medically unnecessary and invasive procedure done because you want to change their mind is immoral.
Trying to force your moral opinion on a woman through propaganda (and, before we debate what counts for propaganda, I'm just going to say that information forced upon you by your legislator and not your doctor is a good starting definition of "propaganda") is immoral. Trying to shame a woman into keeping a child when she's already decided to seek an abortion is immoral and is essentially emotional abuse. Can the legislators also send women who get abortions little baby booties? Can they send them pictures of happy children and say "you no longer get one of these."
Whether its some kind of good-hearted effort to change a woman's mind to match your own or what the rest of us might call "slut-shaming" depends very much on how it is done. Forcing it upon a woman makes it much more the latter, and forcing it upon a woman with a medically unnecessary and invasive procedure destroys almost any argument that this is some kind of innocent "we just love babies" legislation.
"I'm going to stick this in your vagina" is not a kind, friendly discussion about how great children are.
And before I forget, it needs to be pointed out that the earlier in a pregnancy a woman seeks termination, the more likely she would have to undergo the more invasive and more expensive version of the procedure. So like many antichoice laws, it would actually work to push more abortions into happening later in the pregnancy, where its more dangerous, more expensive, and more ethically dubious to some.
It's not possible for the ultra sound to provide no-information. If there is nothing to see, then there is nothing to see. This might comfort a woman who suffered a lot of anti choice propaganda.
I also think it's interesting the suggestion that the sperm-donor can also view the ultrasound. Because some abortion decisions are made by couples.
It's not possible for the ultra sound to provide no-information. If there is nothing to see, then there is nothing to see. This might comfort a woman who suffered a lot of anti choice propaganda.
I also think it's interesting the suggestion that the sperm-donor can also view the ultrasound. Because some abortion decisions are made by couples.
There is a massive difference between a women requesting an ultrasound and one being forced on her by the state. Particularly when it is a transparent attempt to shame her into not getting one.
There is a massive difference between a women requesting an ultrasound and one being forced on her by the state. Particularly when it is a transparent attempt to shame her into not getting one.
More people should be furious about this.
Seriously, holy hell. This isn't about whether a vaginal ultrasound is necessary or useful.
You've got to love Yar's argument that it's nothing like rape because some people do it willingly. It really shows how much he's thinking about what he types.
It's not possible for the ultra sound to provide no-information. If there is nothing to see, then there is nothing to see. This might comfort a woman who suffered a lot of anti choice propaganda.
I also think it's interesting the suggestion that the sperm-donor can also view the ultrasound. Because some abortion decisions are made by couples.
There is a massive difference between a women requesting an ultrasound and one being forced on her by the state. Particularly when it is a transparent attempt to shame her into not getting one.
More people should be furious about this.
I think you're right except for the level of outrage.
It seems more like "making sure". Kinda like a doctor saying "this is exactly what you're getting into. We can't undo it, so you better be triple sure. Are you sure? Pinky swear."
uneccessary and in most cases annoying. If this "tactic" by the anti choice crowd actually causes a woman to change her mind about an abortion, then she mustve been wanting to be convinced.
It's probably impossible to tell, but I bet there is more pressure from boyfriends for women to get abortions then any anti choicer can exert. Their tactic would be "just pretend it never happened" or something.
It's not possible for the ultra sound to provide no-information. If there is nothing to see, then there is nothing to see. This might comfort a woman who suffered a lot of anti choice propaganda.
I also think it's interesting the suggestion that the sperm-donor can also view the ultrasound. Because some abortion decisions are made by couples.
There is a massive difference between a women requesting an ultrasound and one being forced on her by the state. Particularly when it is a transparent attempt to shame her into not getting one.
More people should be furious about this.
Sounds like state-mandated battery or something.
One step away from compulsory sterilisations and the 1930s all over again.
It's not possible for the ultra sound to provide no-information. If there is nothing to see, then there is nothing to see. This might comfort a woman who suffered a lot of anti choice propaganda.
I also think it's interesting the suggestion that the sperm-donor can also view the ultrasound. Because some abortion decisions are made by couples.
There is a massive difference between a women requesting an ultrasound and one being forced on her by the state. Particularly when it is a transparent attempt to shame her into not getting one.
More people should be furious about this.
Sounds like state-mandated battery or something.
One step away from compulsory sterilisations and the 1930s all over again.
Man you would be depressed if you went around asking people "should sterilization be mandatory after the third abortion"
Like seriously depressed
Fucking people man, they're stupid as all hell in general.
Robman on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
It's not possible for the ultra sound to provide no-information. If there is nothing to see, then there is nothing to see. This might comfort a woman who suffered a lot of anti choice propaganda.
I also think it's interesting the suggestion that the sperm-donor can also view the ultrasound. Because some abortion decisions are made by couples.
There is a massive difference between a women requesting an ultrasound and one being forced on her by the state. Particularly when it is a transparent attempt to shame her into not getting one.
More people should be furious about this.
I think you're right except for the level of outrage.
It seems more like "making sure". Kinda like a doctor saying "this is exactly what you're getting into. We can't undo it, so you better be triple sure. Are you sure? Pinky swear."
uneccessary and in most cases annoying. If this "tactic" by the anti choice crowd actually causes a woman to change her mind about an abortion, then she mustve been wanting to be convinced.
It's probably impossible to tell, but I bet there is more pressure from boyfriends for women to get abortions then any anti choicer can exert. Their tactic would be "just pretend it never happened" or something.
Aw well. Fucked up all around. Glad I'm a dude.
As has been pointed out before: It's only abortions that have this "this is exactly what you're getting into. We can't undo it, so you better be triple sure. Are you sure? Pinky swear." third level triple checking. Which, as always, codifies the assumption of the anti-choice crowd that women are fundamentally unable to make informed decisions about their reproductive states without having mans, doctors and the state hold their hand.
Tubals and Hysterectomies also have that level of (heh) histrionics attached to them by the medical profession sadly, something that you rarely see with vasectomies. Women are clearly incapable of making informed decisions about their bodies!
Tubals and Hysterectomies also have that level of (heh) histrionics attached to them by the medical profession sadly, something that you rarely see with vasectomies. Women are clearly incapable of making informed decisions about their bodies!
In fairness those things are both far less reversible, and far more invasive, then a vasectomy. Also, people have a long history of flipping the fuck out if they can't have children. And well, suing people a lot that they weren't properly advised of the dangers.
Also, careful advice is dramatically different to "have this invasive test you don't need".
I've had two kids and I was in the room for this stuff. I'm pretty sure I'm more familiar with it than most here, but feel free to share your superior knowledge.
I've given birth to three kids and, you know, I was kind of by definition in the room for this stuff. What part of my superior knowledge would you like me to share with you?
It seems more like "making sure". Kinda like a doctor saying "this is exactly what you're getting into. We can't undo it, so you better be triple sure. Are you sure? Pinky swear."
Oh, you mean the part where they show a pregnant woman who wants to give birth gory photos of a Caesarean section? After all, at some point it's going to be too late for her to have an abortion. Don't you want the doctor to say "this is exactly what you're getting into. You sure you want to push something that big out of your vagina? Are you sure? Pinky swear."
I mean, even Yar admitted a few posts back that this is really about talking women out of abortion. You don't lean on a patient to take Option A and keep your mouth shut about the drawbacks of Option B if you're really, genuinely just trying to give the poor dear all the information she needs to choose between A and B.
In real life, abortion clinics DO make sure their patients know what they're getting into. They do this by presenting a woman with all of her options - giving birth and keeping the baby, giving birth and giving the baby up for adoption, having an abortion - and the pros and cons of each. They also make sure she is the one making the choice. I have a close friend who used to be a counselor in a clinic. They were taught very carefully to watch for patients who said "Well, my boyfriend thinks I should..." or "My mom made me come here...." and to make it very clear to these women (or, often, girls) that it was their body, that they (not the boyfriend) would be living with the decision however it went, and that the choice was fully up to them. Sometimes this meant that the pregnant woman (or, often, girl) decided against abortion.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Tubals and Hysterectomies also have that level of (heh) histrionics attached to them by the medical profession sadly, something that you rarely see with vasectomies. Women are clearly incapable of making informed decisions about their bodies!
In fairness those things are both far less reversible, and far more invasive, then a vasectomy. Also, people have a long history of flipping the fuck out if they can't have children. And well, suing people a lot that they weren't properly advised of the dangers.
Also, careful advice is dramatically different to "have this invasive test you don't need".
Yes I agree it's very different, but try getting a hysterectomy as a woman under 50 even if you have horrible uterine problems that render you effectively sterile. Try. Nobody will do it.
Robman on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Yes I agree it's very different, but try getting a hysterectomy as a woman under 50 even if you have horrible uterine problems that render you effectively sterile. Try. Nobody will do it.
Eh?
I've personally been in the operating theater on a voluntary hysterectomy on a 22-year-old after her first child.
This sounds like an uninformed statement. Sure, doctors can be reluctant, but doctors also don't care as long as you've been made aware of the risks and your check clears.
Hysterectomy or tubal litigation? I hadn't heard of too many voluntary hysterectomies before.
True, while the tubals are much more common (especially since they can be reversed), voluntary hysterectomies aren't unheard of.
The big reason hysterectomies are shied away from is not just the impossibility to have more children, but the hormonal deficiency that occurs, as the ovaries are often removed as well.
A young woman who loses her ovaries will have a substantial buildup of testosterone, and the concurrent masculinity that follows: thickened features, coarse body hair, deeper voice, facial hair, et al.
Tubals and Hysterectomies also have that level of (heh) histrionics attached to them by the medical profession sadly, something that you rarely see with vasectomies. Women are clearly incapable of making informed decisions about their bodies!
Actually, I have seen plenty of reports of young men having trouble accessing vasectomy. Not as bad as it is for women, but the lack of respect for females making reproductive decisions does bleed over (heyooooooo) to men somewhat.
That said, when you see reports of someone being denied contraception or sterilised in hospital while under the knife for another procedure, you can bet you won't be reading about a dude.
The Cat on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Actually, I have seen plenty of reports of young men having trouble accessing vasectomy.
Hysterectomy or tubal litigation? I hadn't heard of too many voluntary hysterectomies before.
True, while the tubals are much more common (especially since they can be reversed), voluntary hysterectomies aren't unheard of.
The big reason hysterectomies are shied away from is not just the impossibility to have more children, but the hormonal deficiency that occurs, as the ovaries are often removed as well.
A young woman who loses her ovaries will have a substantial buildup of testosterone, and the concurrent masculinity that follows: thickened features, coarse body hair, deeper voice, facial hair, et al.
Uh, kind of an overstatement there - maybe read the wiki on hysterectomy before making claims like that (NSFW warning there: medical images). You just go through menopause real fast (assuming the ovaries are taken out as well), which doesn't necessarily involve getting all manly.
Actually, I have seen plenty of reports of young men having trouble accessing vasectomy.
Really? In what way?
It would be the same issues. Doctors are allowed to refuse to do medical procedures they don't feel a wise, for things that are not life-threatening. Hence (on the topic) abortion doctors are (I think) now commonly advised not to give abortions to people who also spend the other part of their time protesting outside the clinic (that article "The only moral abortion is my abortion") - it's an unnecessary health risk to the patient, and legal risk to the doctor.
I imagine the same is true of young men trying to access vasectomy: if you as a doctor had doubts about the level of understanding of the procedure a patient had, you'd be relunctant to perform it, knowing that if - for example - it sterilizes them permanently - that you might end up facing a lawsuit over it anyway, which you very well might lose. Why bother with the hassle?
You just go through menopause real fast (assuming the ovaries are taken out as well), which doesn't necessarily involve getting all manly.
Not in every case, but things like hair loss, vocal thickening, excessive body and facial hair development, and masculine-type weight distribution are all on the list.
Going bald, shaving, and getting a big gut are pretty manly.
Atomika on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Put it another way: no one has ever gotten sued for leaving a patient with fully functional body parts
Definitely in the context of the American system I can see that. I was thinking from a British perspective hence the initial confusion.
EDIT: Is there a way for male to female transsexuals to raise their voices?
surrealitycheck on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Put it another way: no one has ever gotten sued for leaving a patient with fully functional body parts
Definitely in the context of the American system I can see that. I was thinking from a British perspective hence the initial confusion.
EDIT: Is there a way for male to female transsexuals to raise their voices?
Medically? No.
Eons ago, doctors tried tracheal shaving, but that more often than not just mangled patients. The consensus today is that vocal training is the best way.
Atomika on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Medically? No.
Eons ago, doctors tried tracheal shaving, but that more often than not just mangled patients. The consensus today is that vocal training is the best way.
I was literally just thinking tracheal shaving plus Laryngeal reduction surgery, but guessed would be pretty hard to make work.
I wonder what the success rate on vocal training is.
Yes I agree it's very different, but try getting a hysterectomy as a woman under 50 even if you have horrible uterine problems that render you effectively sterile. Try. Nobody will do it.
Eh?
I've personally been in the operating theater on a voluntary hysterectomy on a 22-year-old after her first child.
This sounds like an uninformed statement. Sure, doctors can be reluctant, but doctors also don't care as long as you've been made aware of the risks and your check clears.
I don't know where he's getting that from either. Hysterectomy is currently the most common operation in the US, isn't it? Average age is 42 according to ACOG's website.
Now, hysterectomy as birth control is probably something most doctors would be reluctant to do given less drastic alternatives, just as they may be a little hesitant if a woman came in and said "I don't ever want to get breast cancer, please perform a double mastectomy."
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
And your argument about what pro-life people hope is rather disingenuous as there simply isn't a heartbeat or fingers or toes at 8 weeks when most abortions are performed. I buy that some of them are horribly horribly misinformed about stuff like this, but I think the sick and extreme minority is larger than you might think.
Fetal heartbeats are expected detectable in transvaginal ultrasound by 5.5 - 6.5 weeks, the earliest that abortions generally occur, and when about 1/4 of them do occur. A measured heart rate of around 100 bpm by week 7 is one of the best indicators of the success of the pregnancy; week 7 is when another 17% of abortions occur. Fingers and toes form around week 9, but true, by then around 60% of abortions have already happened, leaving 40% that occur afterwards. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in what I said. Source: CDC.
you don't get to act like the law isn't an underhanded attempt to manipulate the emotions of the patient in such a way as to cloud her decision making.
Actually I've acted as if this is exactly what I think it was. Because it is what I think it was. I'm assuming the attack you're launching into on me is because you know I'm not much of a pro-lifer, so you feel I'm being disingenuous here. My general stance on abortion discussions is that I can't stand insane rhetoric on either side, and I wish people had a better understanding of each other.
I do believe that many pro-lifers feel that the the political pro-choice movement is about freedom to be immoral, to be a slut or a philanderer, in their eyes. They breakdown of traditional family structures and male and female roles and all that. They see women burning bras, except intead of a bra, it's a baby they're burning. But I do not believe they are motivated by a desire to punish or torture individual women for it. Hell, even the violent psychopathic ones target doctors, not the women. They do, however, believe that if they yell loud enough, appeal to enough emotion, show enough snuff shots of fetuses, force women to talk to their family or get ultrasounds or whatever, then eventually those women will feelcome around to the pro-life side. Not because they will realize what sluts they are, but because they'll realize they have a baby.
For the most part I think the pro-life movement would do better to recognize that these women are not just having fun and killing off the consequences, but rather are making an emotional and powerful choice in their lives that they often do take very seriously and consider on moral and medical levels. Similarly, the pro-choice side would do better to recognize that pro-lifers really just believe that it's a little baby in there and they don't want it killed, and despite their tendency towards shaming a woman and her inferior morals, it isn't because she had sex that they are trying to shame her, and they are not interested in punishing her.
You've got to love Yar's argument that it's nothing like rape because some people do it willingly. It really shows how much he's thinking about what he types.
Or maybe because it's a medical procedure being performed by a qualified doctor, and still only with the patient's consent, despite the rather unfair situation it puts her in.
As has been pointed out before: It's only abortions that have this "this is exactly what you're getting into. We can't undo it, so you better be triple sure. Are you sure? Pinky swear." third level triple checking. Which, as always, codifies the assumption of the anti-choice crowd that women are fundamentally unable to make informed decisions about their reproductive states without having mans, doctors and the state hold their hand.
Well, yeah, only abortion has nearly half the population against it as an immoral act committed on another human. That's what is codified, not any assumption that women are uninformed about their reproductive states. Understanding this is central to understanding the debate.
Posts
Excellent, glad you agree with us. Welcome to the light side.
Transvaginal ultrasounds are pretty much, 100% unnecessary. Transabdominal ultrasounds produce better images almost always. Unless you're a fucking whale.
You don't need an ultrasound to have an abortion to begin with. That's why there's such emotion behind the responses behind the use of metal-dildo rape for the abortion of the alien-parasite-symbiote. There is absolutely no reason for it.
Not sure why rectal ultrasounds are being discussed here now.
as far as I'm concerned you're not forcing them to"confront the emotional reality" you're creating an emotional reality out of whole cloth. If doctors and psychologists agreed that seeing an ultrasound before the abortion was good for emotional health then they could offer it as an option, but I see no evidence whatsoever that they have reached that conclusion, this bill was written for entirely different reasons.
Even if this procedure wasn't sometimes physically invasive and a waste of medical resources (good reasons to be against it) I would be against it anyways because it is about shaming women who want abortions.
When people go for other elective procedures the government doesn't force them to endure unnecessary medical procedures.
Why is it acceptable in this particular instance and no others?
It's an entirely necessary invasive medical test, that removes control over what gets inserted into a woman's vagina. A reasonable person might see an issue in this. Especially when this vaginal ultrasound is required even in rape victims. There's absolutely no medical justification for requiring an ultrasound during an early term pregnancy. None at all. This is medical instruction from the legislature, and excuse me if I tell them to go fuck themselves until they earn an MD and the right to weigh in on medical matters.
You have absolutely no idea how an abortion clinic works, this much is clear. Why don't you go down and ask some people who work at one how they counsel a woman seeking an abortion?
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, that much is clear.
Obviously it isn't acceptable. In particular, not to the Governor. It doesn't really seem necessary, and there are lots of extra emotions and sensitivities involved when it comes to hoo-hoos, so I understand why people would rather this not go through. I am fairly certain, though, that people behind legislation like this have it in their head that a woman will hear the heartbeat, and see arms and legs and fingers, or hear them described, and then change their mind and abort the abortion. That is their motivation, a motivation at least as accessible to the pro-life female as it is to the pro-life male. I am also even more certain that this is not motivated by any desire to perform sexual torture on women or otherwise punish them for presumed immoral behavior, at least not by any but the most sick and extreme minority, and that people who think otherwise have quite a chasm to cross in their comprehension of human beings.
--LeVar Burton
So you are telling us that your partner had transvaginal ultrasounds with both of your kids? Because that isn't standard. I've gone with several of my friends and family members for both dating and structural ultrasounds and they were all done transabdominally. Transvaginal ultrasounds are superior for visualizing the ovaries (not a concern during pregnancy), visualizing the thickness of the endometrium (not a concern during pregnancy) and checking the length of the cervix (yes this is a concern during pregnancy but not at all for women seeking abortions).
And your argument about what pro-life people hope is rather disingenuous as there simply isn't a heartbeat or fingers or toes at 8 weeks when most abortions are performed. I buy that some of them are horribly horribly misinformed about stuff like this, but I think the sick and extreme minority is larger than you might think.
Once again, the legislature just knows better then the women about their own bodies and their own reproductive system. It sure is wonderful that these noble statesmen are there to guide the stupid women to the correct decision.
I mean the single most telling part of these bills is that they're all designed to shame or harass a woman seeking an abortion, and none of them are designed to expand the social support services for pregnant women, or new families.
Just fucking fascinating, that.
You're being hugely disingenuous, Yar, in stating that the intentions of the people writing that law were in any way pure. Even if you don't subscribe to the slut-shaming aspects of the law (which are there whether you want them to be or not, because antichoicers are well-documented as having massive massive sexual hangups), you don't get to act like the law isn't an underhanded attempt to manipulate the emotions of the patient in such a way as to cloud her decision making. The scan doesn't provide any additional information pertinent to the decision about whether to continue the pregnancy. Hell, it won't even provide an image of a recognisable fetus in the early stages, so forget the fingers and toes argument (although, how you don't see that as emotional manipulation, I don't know).
And of course, in all this you're still ignoring the economic effects of this legislation on poor women. The law is such that many of them wouldn't actually get to have the ultrasound or the abortion because suddenly the cost would have doubled!
But yeah, what Rob said. I know you don't even believe your own bullshit, because you've posted as much before. So thanks for making more of an effort than previously, but.... bored now.
Yar:
Forcing someone to have a medically unnecessary and invasive procedure done because you want to change their mind is immoral.
Trying to force your moral opinion on a woman through propaganda (and, before we debate what counts for propaganda, I'm just going to say that information forced upon you by your legislator and not your doctor is a good starting definition of "propaganda") is immoral. Trying to shame a woman into keeping a child when she's already decided to seek an abortion is immoral and is essentially emotional abuse. Can the legislators also send women who get abortions little baby booties? Can they send them pictures of happy children and say "you no longer get one of these."
Whether its some kind of good-hearted effort to change a woman's mind to match your own or what the rest of us might call "slut-shaming" depends very much on how it is done. Forcing it upon a woman makes it much more the latter, and forcing it upon a woman with a medically unnecessary and invasive procedure destroys almost any argument that this is some kind of innocent "we just love babies" legislation.
"I'm going to stick this in your vagina" is not a kind, friendly discussion about how great children are.
--LeVar Burton
I also think it's interesting the suggestion that the sperm-donor can also view the ultrasound. Because some abortion decisions are made by couples.
There is a massive difference between a women requesting an ultrasound and one being forced on her by the state. Particularly when it is a transparent attempt to shame her into not getting one.
More people should be furious about this.
Seriously, holy hell. This isn't about whether a vaginal ultrasound is necessary or useful.
I think you're right except for the level of outrage.
It seems more like "making sure". Kinda like a doctor saying "this is exactly what you're getting into. We can't undo it, so you better be triple sure. Are you sure? Pinky swear."
uneccessary and in most cases annoying. If this "tactic" by the anti choice crowd actually causes a woman to change her mind about an abortion, then she mustve been wanting to be convinced.
It's probably impossible to tell, but I bet there is more pressure from boyfriends for women to get abortions then any anti choicer can exert. Their tactic would be "just pretend it never happened" or something.
Aw well. Fucked up all around. Glad I'm a dude.
Sounds like state-mandated battery or something.
One step away from compulsory sterilisations and the 1930s all over again.
Man you would be depressed if you went around asking people "should sterilization be mandatory after the third abortion"
Like seriously depressed
Fucking people man, they're stupid as all hell in general.
As has been pointed out before: It's only abortions that have this "this is exactly what you're getting into. We can't undo it, so you better be triple sure. Are you sure? Pinky swear." third level triple checking. Which, as always, codifies the assumption of the anti-choice crowd that women are fundamentally unable to make informed decisions about their reproductive states without having mans, doctors and the state hold their hand.
Men don't have that foisted upon them.
In fairness those things are both far less reversible, and far more invasive, then a vasectomy. Also, people have a long history of flipping the fuck out if they can't have children. And well, suing people a lot that they weren't properly advised of the dangers.
Also, careful advice is dramatically different to "have this invasive test you don't need".
I've given birth to three kids and, you know, I was kind of by definition in the room for this stuff. What part of my superior knowledge would you like me to share with you?
Oh, you mean the part where they show a pregnant woman who wants to give birth gory photos of a Caesarean section? After all, at some point it's going to be too late for her to have an abortion. Don't you want the doctor to say "this is exactly what you're getting into. You sure you want to push something that big out of your vagina? Are you sure? Pinky swear."
I mean, even Yar admitted a few posts back that this is really about talking women out of abortion. You don't lean on a patient to take Option A and keep your mouth shut about the drawbacks of Option B if you're really, genuinely just trying to give the poor dear all the information she needs to choose between A and B.
In real life, abortion clinics DO make sure their patients know what they're getting into. They do this by presenting a woman with all of her options - giving birth and keeping the baby, giving birth and giving the baby up for adoption, having an abortion - and the pros and cons of each. They also make sure she is the one making the choice. I have a close friend who used to be a counselor in a clinic. They were taught very carefully to watch for patients who said "Well, my boyfriend thinks I should..." or "My mom made me come here...." and to make it very clear to these women (or, often, girls) that it was their body, that they (not the boyfriend) would be living with the decision however it went, and that the choice was fully up to them. Sometimes this meant that the pregnant woman (or, often, girl) decided against abortion.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Yes I agree it's very different, but try getting a hysterectomy as a woman under 50 even if you have horrible uterine problems that render you effectively sterile. Try. Nobody will do it.
Eh?
I've personally been in the operating theater on a voluntary hysterectomy on a 22-year-old after her first child.
This sounds like an uninformed statement. Sure, doctors can be reluctant, but doctors also don't care as long as you've been made aware of the risks and your check clears.
True, while the tubals are much more common (especially since they can be reversed), voluntary hysterectomies aren't unheard of.
The big reason hysterectomies are shied away from is not just the impossibility to have more children, but the hormonal deficiency that occurs, as the ovaries are often removed as well.
A young woman who loses her ovaries will have a substantial buildup of testosterone, and the concurrent masculinity that follows: thickened features, coarse body hair, deeper voice, facial hair, et al.
Actually, I have seen plenty of reports of young men having trouble accessing vasectomy. Not as bad as it is for women, but the lack of respect for females making reproductive decisions does bleed over (heyooooooo) to men somewhat.
That said, when you see reports of someone being denied contraception or sterilised in hospital while under the knife for another procedure, you can bet you won't be reading about a dude.
Really? In what way?
Uh, kind of an overstatement there - maybe read the wiki on hysterectomy before making claims like that (NSFW warning there: medical images). You just go through menopause real fast (assuming the ovaries are taken out as well), which doesn't necessarily involve getting all manly.
It would be the same issues. Doctors are allowed to refuse to do medical procedures they don't feel a wise, for things that are not life-threatening. Hence (on the topic) abortion doctors are (I think) now commonly advised not to give abortions to people who also spend the other part of their time protesting outside the clinic (that article "The only moral abortion is my abortion") - it's an unnecessary health risk to the patient, and legal risk to the doctor.
I imagine the same is true of young men trying to access vasectomy: if you as a doctor had doubts about the level of understanding of the procedure a patient had, you'd be relunctant to perform it, knowing that if - for example - it sterilizes them permanently - that you might end up facing a lawsuit over it anyway, which you very well might lose. Why bother with the hassle?
Not in every case, but things like hair loss, vocal thickening, excessive body and facial hair development, and masculine-type weight distribution are all on the list.
Going bald, shaving, and getting a big gut are pretty manly.
Definitely in the context of the American system I can see that. I was thinking from a British perspective hence the initial confusion.
EDIT: Is there a way for male to female transsexuals to raise their voices?
Medically? No.
Eons ago, doctors tried tracheal shaving, but that more often than not just mangled patients. The consensus today is that vocal training is the best way.
I was literally just thinking tracheal shaving plus Laryngeal reduction surgery, but guessed would be pretty hard to make work.
I wonder what the success rate on vocal training is.
I don't know where he's getting that from either. Hysterectomy is currently the most common operation in the US, isn't it? Average age is 42 according to ACOG's website.
Now, hysterectomy as birth control is probably something most doctors would be reluctant to do given less drastic alternatives, just as they may be a little hesitant if a woman came in and said "I don't ever want to get breast cancer, please perform a double mastectomy."
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Fetal heartbeats are expected detectable in transvaginal ultrasound by 5.5 - 6.5 weeks, the earliest that abortions generally occur, and when about 1/4 of them do occur. A measured heart rate of around 100 bpm by week 7 is one of the best indicators of the success of the pregnancy; week 7 is when another 17% of abortions occur. Fingers and toes form around week 9, but true, by then around 60% of abortions have already happened, leaving 40% that occur afterwards. I don't think there is anything disingenuous in what I said. Source: CDC.
Actually I've acted as if this is exactly what I think it was. Because it is what I think it was. I'm assuming the attack you're launching into on me is because you know I'm not much of a pro-lifer, so you feel I'm being disingenuous here. My general stance on abortion discussions is that I can't stand insane rhetoric on either side, and I wish people had a better understanding of each other.
I do believe that many pro-lifers feel that the the political pro-choice movement is about freedom to be immoral, to be a slut or a philanderer, in their eyes. They breakdown of traditional family structures and male and female roles and all that. They see women burning bras, except intead of a bra, it's a baby they're burning. But I do not believe they are motivated by a desire to punish or torture individual women for it. Hell, even the violent psychopathic ones target doctors, not the women. They do, however, believe that if they yell loud enough, appeal to enough emotion, show enough snuff shots of fetuses, force women to talk to their family or get ultrasounds or whatever, then eventually those women will feelcome around to the pro-life side. Not because they will realize what sluts they are, but because they'll realize they have a baby.
For the most part I think the pro-life movement would do better to recognize that these women are not just having fun and killing off the consequences, but rather are making an emotional and powerful choice in their lives that they often do take very seriously and consider on moral and medical levels. Similarly, the pro-choice side would do better to recognize that pro-lifers really just believe that it's a little baby in there and they don't want it killed, and despite their tendency towards shaming a woman and her inferior morals, it isn't because she had sex that they are trying to shame her, and they are not interested in punishing her.
I can agree with that. But if it does change their mind, I'm still interested as to the implications there.
Or maybe because it's a medical procedure being performed by a qualified doctor, and still only with the patient's consent, despite the rather unfair situation it puts her in.
Well, yeah, only abortion has nearly half the population against it as an immoral act committed on another human. That's what is codified, not any assumption that women are uninformed about their reproductive states. Understanding this is central to understanding the debate.