Quite Possibly the Most Offensive Law Passed in the U.S. in My Lifetime

General Buck Turgidson said:
Yeah, that's sound rationale. Better yet, in all likelihood pregnant women have consented to someone penetrating them in the past so what's the big deal, right?

You're a disgrace.

And no, women cannot opt out of the procedure. They can elect not to look at the ultrasound images, but whether they do is placed in their medical record.
Click to expand...

So an ultra sound camera is rape, but a vacuum hose into her vagina and up into her cervix to kill her unborn baby is what?
 
nevermind...this amendment failed...why?

The qualified medical professional performing fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant to subsection B shall determine whether a fetal ultrasound image can be obtained without the use of a transvaginal ultrasound or other ultrasound method requiring vaginal penetration. The qualified medical professional performing fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant to subsection B shall not perform an ultrasound requiring vaginal penetration without the prior written consent of the pregnant woman. If the qualified medical professional performing the fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant to subsection B determines that a fetal ultrasound image can only be obtained with an ultrasound requiring vaginal penetration and the pregnant woman declines to provide written consent to an ultrasound requiring vaginal penetration, then the provisions of this section related to performance of fetal ultrasound imaging shall not apply and fetal ultrasound imaging for the purpose of determining fetal age shall not be required.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+amd+HB462AH

i cannot believe this amendment failed. why the need for penetration?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Yeah, that's sound rationale. Better yet, in all likelihood pregnant women have consented to someone penetrating them in the past so what's the big deal, right?

You're a disgrace.

And no, women cannot opt out of the procedure. They can elect not to look at the ultrasound images, but whether they do is placed in their medical record.
Click to expand...

This is to shame women, pure and simple. The religious right hope that in shaming women they will feel remorse about having the abortion.
 
Yurt said:
isn't an ultrasound over the belly and not internal?
Click to expand...

At later stages in a pregnancy an ultrasound image is easy to procure with an abdominal procedure. In earlier stages an image can really only be clear if the camera is inserted into the vagina. The question of the law is over requiring the procedure as part of having an abortion. It is now a part of an abortion procedure- which already has the doctor sticking instrument and other alien objects into the vagina and into the cervix.
 
icedancer2theend said:
As part of having an abortion she gives consent. The law expands the procedure of an abortion to include vaginal ultrasounds.
Click to expand...

it is not part of the abortion. you're right the law expands the procedure and imo, completely unconstitutional invasion of privacy. there is not need for an internal ultrasound. the amendment i posted in 22 should have passed. do you agree?
 
I'm with Dung on this. While I don't give a fuck about abortion one way or another, it's a pretty big invasion of a person for them to do what is already legal for them.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Murder is a legal term and is useless in the abortion debate, since the law does not recognize medical abortions as murder.
Click to expand...

No, Murder is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. That is what abortion does.

Just because it doesn't meet a LEGAL definition does not change the fact that it is still murder.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh please. Spare us the drama. I can think of no better argument for retroactive abortions then you! :p
Click to expand...

No drama... just the facts. Whether you wish to dehumanize the child or not is your prerogative. It doesn't change the fact that an abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life.
 
Superfreak said:
No, Murder is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. That is what abortion does.

Just because it doesn't meet a LEGAL definition does not change the fact that it is still murder.
Click to expand...

therein lies your fatal error. you're trying to apply common sense to something/someone who wants to support the government methodology of defining things. something we all know is lunacy, but works wonderfully for liberals and conservatives on their favorite topics.
 
Superfreak said:
No, Murder is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. That is what abortion does.

Just because it doesn't meet a LEGAL definition does not change the fact that it is still murder.
Click to expand...

Suit yourself- but words matter in being able to have a discussion. Murder is a legal definition. I have found that you can avoid all kinds of rabbit trails when discussing abortion, if you discuss the intentional killing of the unborn, without using a term that is useless, except to offer your opponent said rabbit trails. I don't disagree with what the outcome of abortion is i.e. the deliberate taking of an innocent human life.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I imagine that a law that required a doctor to probe every man's ass that wanted to buy a gun would probably rank up there on your list.
Click to expand...

Virginia State Senator Janet Howell had a similar idea:


On Monday Howell expressed her disdain for legislation requiring the ultrasound by proposing an amendment she described as a simple matter of fairness. Her amendment said that before being treated for erectile dysfunction, a man would have to undergo a digital rectal exam and a cardiac stress test.

“We should just have a little gender equity here,” Howell said.​


Sadly, her amendment was defeated by a vote of 21-19.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top