Oklahoma Gov. Vetoes GOP Anti-Choice Bill Requiring Unnecessary Invasive Procedure

US News • Views: 4,494

Here go the anti-choice Republicans again; in Oklahoma a gang of GOP lawmakers has tried to pass a series of absurdly intrusive bills designed to intimidate and frighten women out of having abortions — including a bill that would mandate an invasive ultrasound procedure.

Absolutely unbelievable! These social conservative creeps are trying to require an unnecessary invasive procedure for all women who have abortions. I thought I’d seen everything. They seem to be using Oklahoma as a test case to see how far they can push their obsession with controlling the lives of women.

Thankfully, the governor of Oklahoma has vetoed the worst of these bills.

OKLAHOMA CITY, April 24 (UPI) — Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry said he vetoed a bill that would require women to go through ultrasound examinations before abortions to avoid a court fight.

Henry Friday also vetoed a measure that would have banned wrongful birth lawsuits, The Oklahoman reported Saturday. Such suits are brought by parents of children born with Down’s syndrome and other congenital problems that were not diagnosed during pregnancy.

Henry, a Democrat, said the first bill was likely to involve the state in expensive litigation. He also described the bill as too sweeping because there are no exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

“State policymakers should never mandate that a citizen be forced to undergo any medical procedure against his or her will, especially when such a procedure could cause physical or mental trauma,” Henry said.

Jump to bottom

212 comments
1 Political Atheist  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:06:49am

One name gets added to the "possibly sensible" list of Governors. Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry. Well done!

2 jamesfirecat  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:10:32am

You know what's really sad? If the surgeries were going to be mandatory then obviously the state was going to have to pay for them.

Which in turn would mean...

Government run healthcare, OMG SOCIALISM1!11! and so on and so forth.....

3 Summer Seale  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:10:42am

It's far more draconian than that.

This is the article I tweeted about a couple of days ago. The thing is from the Middle Ages, literally:

[Link: www.smh.com.au...]

CHICAGO: The governor of Oklahoma is considering tough new abortion bills that would allow doctors to withhold test results showing foetal defects and require women to answer intrusive questions.

The results of the questionnaires would be posted online.

Women would also be required to have a vaginal ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the embryo or foetus in a third bill passed by the legislature on Monday.

4 Summer Seale  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:11:43am

Sorry that whole thing should have been bolded. Messed up there.

Again, the results would have been posted online, for everyone to see.

5 jamesfirecat  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:13:25am

re: #3 Summer

It's far more draconian than that.

This is the article I tweeted about a couple of days ago. The thing is from the Middle Ages, literally:

[Link: www.smh.com.au...]

CHICAGO: The governor of Oklahoma is considering tough new abortion bills that would allow doctors to withhold test results showing foetal defects and require women to answer intrusive questions.

The results of the questionnaires would be posted online.

Women would also be required to have a vaginal ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the embryo or foetus in a third bill passed by the legislature on Monday.

Vagina Ultrasound FEH! (SPITS) I think i saw one person describe that particular idea as in "Just in case you weren't traumatized enough to become a good christian girl the first time you had a long hard object shoved into your nether regions!"

6 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:14:10am

Yeah, there is nothing, I repeat nothing nice about the type of ultrasound they were talking about.
Invasive is such a nice way of putting it.
It is like the worst prostate exam you guys could ever imagine....

This is the reason why states can't be trusted to make laws about abortion.
A. Because most of the lawmakers are men
B. Because a whole lot of those men are morons

7 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:14:39am

re: #3 Summer

And a vaginal ultrasound means they put a wand in the vagina.

I hold the rather simple belief that women should not have things put into their vaginas if they object to it.

8 austin_blue  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:14:47am

Ever notice it's always men who write these bills?

By the way, finally got back from the UK last night after an 8-day unintended extension of our "little week long jaunt"

9 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:14:52am

From the link:
Henry signed another bill mandating signs in abortion clinics notifying women they cannot be forced into an abortion against their will.

10 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:15:28am

re: #6 webevintage

Oh right, it can be a rectal entry rather than a vaginal one.

Either way: stupid, stupid, stupid to try to force this.

11 jamesfirecat  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:15:34am

re: #6 webevintage

Yeah, there is nothing, I repeat nothing nice about the type of ultrasound they were talking about.
Invasive is such a nice way of putting it.
It is like the worst prostate exam you guys could ever imagine...

This is the reason why states can't be trusted to make laws about abortion.
A. Because most of the lawmakers are men
B. Because a whole lot of those men are morons

Morons is putting it too kindly if you ask me, no one can be stupid enough to come up with an idea this stupid out of pure stupidity it flunks my "never ascribe to malice what you can to ignorance" test which was pass fail to begin with...

12 Summer Seale  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:15:42am

re: #7 Obdicut

You don't have to tell me twice. =)

13 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:15:46am

re: #8 austin_blue

Ever notice it's always men who write these bills?

By the way, finally got back from the UK last night after an 8-day unintended extension of our "little week long jaunt"

Good to see you got your ash back here

14 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:16:04am

re: #7 Obdicut

And a vaginal ultrasound means they put a wand in the vagina.

I hold the rather simple belief that women should not have things put into their vaginas if they object to it.

Oh honey it is NOT a wand...
It is more like a huge joke sex toy...or at least they were 18 years ago.

15 austin_blue  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:16:46am

re: #13 HoosierHoops

Good to see you got your ash back here

Extra cost:

$1,200.

Ouch.

16 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:17:28am

re: #8 austin_blue

Ever notice it's always men who write these bills?

By the way, finally got back from the UK last night after an 8-day unintended extension of our "little week long jaunt"

Well were you able to enjoy those extra 8 days or was it just the vacation from hell?
And welcome back!

17 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:17:36am

re: #14 webevintage

That super-sucks. But, of course it could be as small as a strand of spaghetti and the principle would remain the same.

18 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:18:43am

re: #17 Obdicut

That super-sucks. But, of course it could be as small as a strand of spaghetti and the principle would remain the same.

agreed.

19 Summer Seale  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:19:19am

Honestly, I think somebody ought to propose a bill in the OK State Legislature which requires all politicians who voted in favor of these other bills to be required to submit to invasive anal questions by a doctor, the results of which should be posted online.

And then they should be required by law to have an invasive anal intrusion ultrasound for an hour or two at the end of which time it would be studied to determine whether or not their assholes really are bigger than other average people.

The results of which also should be posted online.

20 jamesfirecat  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:20:13am

re: #9 Cannadian Club Akbar

From the link:
Henry signed another bill mandating signs in abortion clinics notifying women they cannot be forced into an abortion against their will.

That's another f***ed up thing about the world we live in. Because part of me thinks that in the case of teenagers, maybe it should come down to the parents rather than what their daughter wants? You can't enter into legal contracts without your parents consent when you're a teenager, you can't get married that young... but a marriage is a hell of a lot easier to undo then having a kid once you've gone and done it.

The world we live in trusts teenagers to be able to decide of their own free will if they're ready to have children, but not if they're ready to marry the men who got them pregnant.

Thoughts?

21 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:21:07am

re: #19 Summer

Honestly, I think somebody ought to propose a bill in the OK State Legislature which requires all politicians who voted in favor of these other bills to be required to submit to invasive anal questions by a doctor, the results of which should be posted online.

And then they should be required by law to have an invasive anal intrusion ultrasound for an hour or two at the end of which time it would be studied to determine whether or not their assholes really are bigger than other average people.

The results of which also should be posted online.

I was gonna say that and add that the Dr's have really fat fingers.:)

22 austin_blue  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:21:12am

re: #16 webevintage

Well were you able to enjoy those extra 8 days or was it just the vacation from hell?
And welcome back!

Oh, we made the best of it. When life gives you lemons, make Shandies.

Stirling Castle, two London Walks, Woburn Abbey, several music gigs. But still...

Bets line of the whole thing:

"The dying Icelandic's economy's final wish after the banking crisis mortally wounded it was that its ashes be scattered over Europe."

Badda bing!

23 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:22:44am

re: #20 jamesfirecat

Parental consent is an entirely different, complex issue.

The long and the short of it is that any teenage girl who has reason to believe her parents would harm her if they knew she wanted an abortion should still be able to get an abortion and should be protected from harm.

24 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:23:22am

re: #22 austin_blue

Did the sky look really different? How were the sunsets?

25 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:24:00am

re: #20 jamesfirecat

That's another f***ed up thing about the world we live in. Because part of me thinks that in the case of teenagers, maybe it should come down to the parents rather than what their daughter wants? You can't enter into legal contracts without your parents consent when you're a teenager, you can't get married that young... but a marriage is a hell of a lot easier to undo then having a kid once you've gone and done it.

The world we live in trusts teenagers to be able to decide of their own free will if they're ready to have children, but not if they're ready to marry the men who got them pregnant.

Thoughts?

States differ in the marriage age thing. But you're right. Things are fucked up.

26 Liberal Classic  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:24:38am

re: #3 Summer

I'm appalled by the naked authoritarianism here: that doctors should be required to perform some procedures while at the same time prohibited from releasing test results from others and mandating the public release of medical information. Pelvic ultrasounds are not generally used to diagnose fetal problems, but to identify ovarian and bladder cancer. And as for posting answers to an intrusive medical questionnaire online? This is just nuts, and runs totally contrary to medical privacy laws and patient/doctor confidentiality.

27 austin_blue  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:25:12am

re: #20 jamesfirecat

That's another f***ed up thing about the world we live in. Because part of me thinks that in the case of teenagers, maybe it should come down to the parents rather than what their daughter wants? You can't enter into legal contracts without your parents consent when you're a teenager, you can't get married that young... but a marriage is a hell of a lot easier to undo then having a kid once you've gone and done it.

The world we live in trusts teenagers to be able to decide of their own free will if they're ready to have children, but not if they're ready to marry the men who got them pregnant.

Thoughts?

I think the fathers should be tracked down, made to pay, and publicly outed in the local papers. See how long these laws last when little Johnny the football Captain gets in the papers for knocking up little Susie the Cheerleader.

28 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:26:27am

And since I haven't said it yet: Good on the governor for being responsible and vetoing this, especially since they'd just get shot down in court. He saved the taxpayers a lot of money by vetoing the bills.

29 jamesfirecat  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:26:33am

re: #23 Obdicut

Parental consent is an entirely different, complex issue.

The long and the short of it is that any teenage girl who has reason to believe her parents would harm her if they knew she wanted an abortion should still be able to get an abortion and should be protected from harm.

Fair enough, but that doesn't really enter into the issue of "women (or to put it better "girls" in this case) can't be forced into having abortions" part of me wonders if there are times when if the parents know and they want their daughter to get an abortion, and the daughter doesn't want an abortion, if the daughter isn't old enough to legally vote yet, the parents should be the one with the final say.

Its purely hypothetical for me being male in a family where my only sibling is also male, what do you guys think?

30 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:27:32am

re: #29 jamesfirecat

No, no woman should ever be forced to have an abortion under any circumstances. That's insane.

31 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:27:34am

re: #23 Obdicut

Parental consent is an entirely different, complex issue.

The long and the short of it is that any teenage girl who has reason to believe her parents would harm her if they knew she wanted an abortion should still be able to get an abortion and should be protected from harm.

I totally get your point. Where things are fucked up is: You can't take an aspirin in school, nor get your ears pierced at the mall if you're under 18. My head hurts.

32 austin_blue  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:27:53am

re: #24 Obdicut

Did the sky look really different? How were the sunsets?

The weather was fantastic. Some very thin ash falls in Edinburgh (think springtime in Lubbock) and a little bed more red at sunset than usual, according to the locals. But if the air lanes hadn't been shut down, you wouldn't have noticed anything untoward, that I saw.

33 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:28:01am

Just a drive by, not getting into a discussion , but when I saw this I had to point out that a routine obstetrical ultrasound exam in pregnancy is neither surgical nor invasive. A quick five minute procedure that is basically comparable to a TSA airport security wanding / scan only with better trained personnel.
Squirt some gel on the tummy, wave the wand over it, and you're done.
Just saying.
If someone doesn't want one, then they shouldn't be forced to have one. But in opposing the law, the information should at least be factual.

34 Renaissance_Man  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:28:02am

re: #26 Liberal Classic

I'm appalled by the naked authoritarianism here: that doctors should be required to perform some procedures while at the same time prohibited from releasing test results from others and mandating the public release of medical information. Pelvic ultrasounds are not generally used to diagnose fetal problems, but to identify ovarian and bladder cancer. And as for posting answers to an intrusive medical questionnaire online? This is just nuts, and runs totally contrary to medical privacy laws and patient/doctor confidentiality.

And yet, those supporting this bill most likely imagine that expanding insurance coverage is 'government-controlled health care'.

Cognitive dissonance - it's a terrifying thing.

35 austin_blue  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:29:46am

re: #32 austin_blue

The weather was fantastic. Some very thin ash falls in Edinburgh (think springtime in Lubbock) and a little bed more red at sunset than usual, according to the locals. But if the air lanes hadn't been shut down, you wouldn't have noticed anything untoward, that I saw.

Bed = bit.

PIMF

36 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:30:26am

PIMF:
Okay.... they want to require a vaginal ultrasound?
Sounds ridiculous, and unnecessary when an external one would do the job.
Should have finished the link, sorry.

37 cliffster  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:31:23am

re: #33 tradewind

There's different kinds. I don't know which is required. Either way, it's not their place to require it.

38 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:31:40am

re: #33 tradewind

Asshole.

The law states that either an abdominal or vaginal ultrasound, whichever gives the best image of the fetus, must be done. Neither the patient nor the doctor can decide which type of ultrasound to use, and the patient cannot opt out of the ultrasound and still have the procedure. In effect, then, the legislature has mandated that a woman have an instrument placed in her vagina for no medical benefit. The law makes no exception for victims of rape and incest.

In the early months, that would be a vaginal exam.

39 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:32:28am

re: #36 tradewind

Yes, you really should have finished the damn link, especially when chiding other people on being factual.

Fail.

40 Liberal Classic  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:34:38am

re: #34 Renaissance_Man

And yet, those supporting this bill most likely imagine that expanding insurance coverage is 'government-controlled health care'.

Cognitive dissonance - it's a terrifying thing.

Speaking as a libertarian-leaning person, I find that right-wing Republicans are in favor of governmental authority when it advances their social conservative agenda.

41 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:34:47am

re: #31 Cannadian Club Akbar

Our society is scared to death of kids but incredibly paternalistic towards them at the same time. We treat them like dangerous like criminals who are naive and precious and who need to be shielded from everything that might promote bad behavior-- and we treat them as though they're inclined towards bad behavior and the slightest influence on them will turn them into murdering rape machines.

It's pretty crazy of us.

42 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:35:26am

re: #19 Summer

Honestly, I think somebody ought to propose a bill in the OK State Legislature which requires all politicians who voted in favor of these other bills to be required to submit to invasive anal questions by a doctor, the results of which should be posted online.

And then they should be required by law to have an invasive anal intrusion ultrasound for an hour or two at the end of which time it would be studied to determine whether or not their assholes really are bigger than other average people.

The results of which also should be posted online.

I am totally in favor of this bill. The results would be instructive, I think.

43 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:37:05am

re: #39 Obdicut
It wasn't a poll, but thanks for the echo.

44 Liberal Classic  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:37:18am

re: #33 tradewind

A quick five minute procedure that is basically comparable to a TSA airport security wanding / scan only with better trained personnel.

Babies are a security risk?

45 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:38:15am

re: #19 Summer
Wouldn't work , they'd have to get their heads out first.//

46 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:39:28am

re: #44 Liberal Classic
If you're concerned, don't have one.

47 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:40:22am

re: #41 Obdicut

I work with a girl, 17, who is in ROTC and and getting ready for college. I also, years ago, worked with a kid, 18, who died of an OD of drugs. I like the girl and protect her. Hated the kid. Point taken.

48 Political Atheist  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:41:33am

re: #30 Obdicut
Forcing either way is just all bad.

re: #29 jamesfirecat

Ya got me thinking. I attempt to define the crux of the issue.

Teen or parent?
That is exactly the kind of tragic conundrum our culture bestows on us. Since legal adulthood is about 5 to 7 years after female reproductive adulthood happens, we have to get adult judgment in by 11 years old. Good luck with that, it's just not going to happen some of the time.

Parents are the final responsible party until legal adulthood by most measures. Yet scared and unprepared teenagers must be trusted to make the best birth or abortion decision. Or else the parents are forcing a decision. If reproductive decisions belong to the teen, then sexual decisions do too. Legally I mean. Which has repercussions for who she is allowed to have sex with at 16, apart from imperiling his or her freedom from jail.

I don't have the answer I can only try to define the problem so far.

49 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:43:31am

re: #38 Obdicut
(Orifice-of-choice)
How many ultrasounds in the first trimester of pregnancy have you had?
Because every time I had a baby, I also had an external, uninvasive (but for the massive amounts of water I had to drink) sonogram in the first trimester.
What's that thing you like to say, oh...
FAIL.

50 jvic  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:46:06am

Here we are, still in the most dangerous economic conditions in 70 years, and here are the GOP's base priorities. (Pun intended.)

As a conservative/libertarian swing voter, I am angry but not surprised.

I've been worrying that the Republicans seem to have learned bupkis from 2006 & 2008, but this latest reminder is useful.

51 Political Atheist  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:46:51am

re: #40 Liberal Classic

Heh. Seems everybody likes the gov to enforce their ideas. As these recent 2 presidents have shown, executive power grows by circumstances other than partisan driven ones.

52 Randall Gross  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:47:02am

re: #33 tradewind

Forcing someone to go through something they don't want to is not just invasive, it's coercive use of Government, and more likely to take us to a police state than "Obama's Army".

53 Killgore Trout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:47:46am

I see the gop now has no problem with government mandated medical purchases.

54 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:48:39am

re: #34 Renaissance_Man

And yet, those supporting this bill most likely imagine that expanding insurance coverage is 'government-controlled health care'.

Cognitive dissonance - it's a terrifying thing.

Pfft. It's only government controlled health care when the gubmint is trying to get their hands on your Medicare benefits. =P

55 Liberal Classic  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:48:48am

re: #46 tradewind

If you're concerned, don't have one.

Oh right. Don't want the government-mandated pelvic examination? Don't get pregnant. That's your answer? If pelvic ultrasounds were useful in detecting fetal health issues, they would already a common part of pre-natal care. But they're not. And even if they were, under the terms of this bill doctors would be prohibited from telling the mothers the results. This is harassment, plain and simple.

56 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:51:02am

re: #7 Obdicut

And a vaginal ultrasound means they put a wand in the vagina.

I hold the rather simple belief that women should not have things put into their vaginas if they object to it.

When i first heard of this bill, i suggested that it include a rider for an automatic prostate exam for the father, given simultaneously, with a wand no smaller than the one being used for the ultrasound.

Turnabout is fair play, right...?

57 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:51:50am

re: #19 Summer

dang...gmta...

58 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:53:00am

re: #52 Thanos
Yes, I said that in my post. If they don't want one, they shouldn't have to have one.

59 Killgore Trout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:53:31am

OT: I'm pleased to see the Linkage relaunch was a success. Good links and plenty of activity.

60 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:53:48am

I wonder how many OK politicians voted for this bill because of their job security and not their convictions. ( I know it is the bible belt but...)

61 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:54:02am

I want to compliment Mr. Beaumont and Mr. Johnson for making the transition from restricting discussion of a touchy issue to restricting the participation of those who can't keep their cool discussing a touchy issue. In my opinion it makes a better forum if you ban people who can't behave than if you ban topics that set them off. It was a lot of work, resulting in a lot of flak. I think it paid off.

62 Randall Gross  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:56:05am

re: #58 tradewind

Yeah, and you tried to imply that Charles wasn't being factual. I don't care whether it's voluntary or not, getting one of these is INVASIVE. That's a fact, it doesn't matter the time or effort it takes. Invasive is the correct word to use.

63 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:57:23am

re: #62 Thanos
Two posts later, I indicated that I had not read far enough to have complete information. Evidently neither did you, because my PIMF post was pretty speedy.

64 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:57:47am

re: #60 Cannadian Club Akbar

I wonder how many OK politicians voted for this bill because of their job security and not their convictions. ( I know it is the bible belt but...)

I dunno..I'm moving to OK in July..Should be interesting to report from there.
I'm not sure what to expect

65 Renaissance_Man  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:58:14am

re: #55 Liberal Classic

Oh right. Don't want the government-mandated pelvic examination? Don't get pregnant. That's your answer? If pelvic ultrasounds were useful in detecting fetal health issues, they would already a common part of pre-natal care. But they're not. And even if they were, under the terms of this bill doctors would be prohibited from telling the mothers the results. This is harassment, plain and simple.

Pelvic ultrasounds are a common part of prenatal care. Probably the most important part. Most pelvic ultrasounds are transabdominal, which is the simple, five minute procedure tradewind describes. The invasive procedure being talked about is a transvaginal ultrasound, which is not a common part of prenatal care.

However, the reason it's not a common part of prenatal care is not because it's not useful in detecting foetal health issues, because it is. It gives a better view, and if your OB has good reason to suspect a real problem (perhaps by detecting it transabdominally first), they'll do a transvaginal U/S. The reason it's not commonly used is because it's invasive, uncomfortable, and unnecessary generally, because most pregnancies are not complicated.

The phrase being made hay of is that the bill demands the best imaging procedure, so the mother/murderous harlot (depending on your view) can see the foetus better. That is being taken to mean a transvaginal U/S, though technically a $60,000 MRI would give the best possible view, I suppose. However, I suspect the Oklahoma bill probably wouldn't require a MRI. After all, when it comes to government directly interfering in the doctor-patient relationship and directly mandating care, it still pays to be fiscally responsible.

66 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:59:45am

re: #64 HoosierHoops

I dunno..I'm moving to OK in July..Should be interesting to report from there.
I'm not sure what to expect

Hot chicks that live there and a drunk guy on your couch?
///

67 TampaKnight  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:00:20am

Lol, I love the use of "anti-choice".

I guess I'll start calling all abortion proponents "anti-life".

68 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:00:29am

re: #66 Cannadian Club Akbar

Hot chicks that live there and a drunk guy on your couch?
///

We can only hope!
*wink*

69 Liberal Classic  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:00:55am

re: #65 Renaissance_Man

I stand corrected. I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night and read that pelvic ultrasounds are used mostly in pre-pregnancy screening (uterine fibroid) or for cancers.

Somehow though, I don't think this bill is about getting the absolute best care for the baby.

70 Four More Tears  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:00:59am

To the op: sometimes I feel as though I live in a different country.

71 Randall Gross  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:01:18am

re: #62 Thanos

Yeah, and you tried to imply that Charles wasn't being factual. I don't care whether it's voluntary or not, getting one of these is INVASIVE. That's a fact, it doesn't matter the time or effort it takes. Invasive is the correct word to use.

So basically you got caught in your knee jerk defense of the bill, and you are complaining about me pointing it out. I mean WTF is up with this statement which doesn't even accurately describe the invasiveness of a normal ultrasound for a woman who is bringing her child to bear? Why were you trying to downplay the coerciveness of this law ?

A quick five minute procedure that is basically comparable to a TSA airport security wanding / scan only with better trained personnel.

72 Four More Tears  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:01:35am

re: #67 TampaKnight

Lol, I love the use of "anti-choice".

I guess I'll start calling all abortion proponents "anti-life".

Pro-death!!

73 Charles Johnson  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:01:35am

re: #67 TampaKnight

Lol, I love the use of "anti-choice".

I guess I'll start calling all abortion proponents "anti-life".

You mean you don't already?

74 cenotaphium  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:02:29am

re: #67 TampaKnight

Lol, I love the use of "anti-choice".

I guess I'll start calling all abortion proponents "anti-life".

Why not pick "pro-abortion" that's already widely used? Anti-life just sounds nihilistic, pro-death gives it the extra kick, I think.

75 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:02:30am

re: #72 JasonA

Pro-death!!

No, silly, FETAL DEATH PANELS!!!

76 TampaKnight  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:02:40am

re: #73 Charles

You mean you don't already?

No....truthfully I find the use of "anti" on both sides of the debate as just a way to demonize the counter opinion.

Just my opinion.

77 Randall Gross  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:02:53am

re: #67 TampaKnight

Lol, I love the use of "anti-choice".

I guess I'll start calling all abortion proponents "anti-life".

That's the perfect description. The bill is certainly trying to take the choice of whether or not to have an ultrasound before an abortion away are they not?

78 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:03:00am

re: #75 Cannadian Club Akbar

No, silly, FETAL DEATH PANELS!!!

Forgot this...///

79 austin_blue  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:03:22am

re: #65 Renaissance_Man

Pelvic ultrasounds are a common part of prenatal care. Probably the most important part. Most pelvic ultrasounds are transabdominal, which is the simple, five minute procedure tradewind describes. The invasive procedure being talked about is a transvaginal ultrasound, which is not a common part of prenatal care.

However, the reason it's not a common part of prenatal care is not because it's not useful in detecting foetal health issues, because it is. It gives a better view, and if your OB has good reason to suspect a real problem (perhaps by detecting it transabdominally first), they'll do a transvaginal U/S. The reason it's not commonly used is because it's invasive, uncomfortable, and unnecessary generally, because most pregnancies are not complicated.

The phrase being made hay of is that the bill demands the best imaging procedure, so the mother/murderous harlot (depending on your view) can see the foetus better. That is being taken to mean a transvaginal U/S, though technically a $60,000 MRI would give the best possible view, I suppose. However, I suspect the Oklahoma bill probably wouldn't require a MRI. After all, when it comes to government directly interfering in the doctor-patient relationship and directly mandating care, it still pays to be fiscally responsible.

An MRI is closer to $600, but your point is well taken.

Let's say a test is done and the result is that the fetus is anencephalic - no forebrain. You can't tell the mother that she is carrying a corpse?

That's just rock dumb.

80 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:03:30am

re: #67 TampaKnight
The language is silly on both sides.
Anti- our-choice/
Pro-gestational-life/
Neither is really honest.

81 Four More Tears  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:04:59am

Let me get this straight: gov't making citizens buy health insurance = unacceptable threat to liberty and freedom. Gov't making women seeking abortion go through an ultrasound = the way it should be. Just trying to clear things up.

82 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:05:11am

re: #71 Thanos
I'm not going to continue to try to take this bone away from you..... gnaw away.
But your mind-reading's flawed.

83 cliffster  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:05:17am

Another example of government bullying and taking away rights. Government should kept small and kept in check.

84 Charles Johnson  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:05:25am

re: #76 TampaKnight

No...truthfully I find the use of "anti" on both sides of the debate as just a way to demonize the counter opinion.

Just my opinion.

The essential fact about social conservatives who are opposed to abortion in all circumstances is that they are trying to take away freedom of choice from pregnant women.

I'm going to continue using this term to describe social conservatives such as the Oklahoma lawmakers.

85 Four More Tears  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:05:41am

re: #83 cliffster

Another example of government bullying and taking away rights. Government should kept small and kept in check.

I updinged you. I feel dirty.

86 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:06:33am

Jason Campbell just got traded to the Raiders!
Yahoo! Go big or go home!

87 TampaKnight  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:06:57am

re: #84 Charles

The essential fact about social conservatives who are opposed to abortion in all circumstances is that they are trying to take away freedom of choice from pregnant women.

I'm going to continue using this term to describe social conservatives such as the Oklahoma lawmakers.

Fair enough.

I said it only because I'm not fully in either camp on the issue, and have been called both "anti-life" and "anti-choice", depending on who is trying to prove me wrong that day.

88 Liberal Classic  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:10:21am

re: #79 austin_blue

An MRI is closer to $600, but your point is well taken.

He set me right. Even the external abdominal ultrasounds are pelvic exams, though the common usage of pelvic exam for a non-medical person like me means something more personal like a pap smear. The trans-vaginal and trans-anal (don't get to write about these things very often) are not that common to pre-natal care in my experience. But I was wrong to say they weren't useful. None of my friends had them during their pre-natal care. Maybe they were fortunate not to need them. Not to give out TMI but my wife was diagnosed with uterine fibroids. The detection and removal of them was very invasive.

89 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:11:43am

re: #87 TampaKnight

I can argue both sides of the issue. If I get into a debate with someone I think is an asshole, I will choose the opposite side and go extreme left or extreme right depending on their POV. That's why I'm a bastard.:)

90 Four More Tears  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:12:36am

re: #89 Cannadian Club Akbar

I think you're a bastard because you're holding on to all the liquor...

91 reine.de.tout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:12:38am

re: #87 TampaKnight

Fair enough.

I said it only because I'm not fully in either camp on the issue, and have been called both "anti-life" and "anti-choice", depending on who is trying to prove me wrong that day.

It's hard to be anti-abortion (as I am, strongly).
On the one hand, I think it's a terrible choice to have to make.
On the other hand, people will make that choice, and when they do, I would prefer they have access to a legal and safe procedure with appropriate follow-up care, rather than an illegal, must-be-hidden at all costs procedure, in who knows what sort of unsanitary conditions.

But if I'm asked by someone for advice, I will always promote the option of having the child and placing him/her for adoption.

92 Macha  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:12:39am

What I find the most interesting about this bill is the hostility toward women contained in it. There is a punishment aspect that I suspect is aimed at women who become pregnant out of wedlock, as that is, I presume, the most common profile of women seeking an abortion. I don't have any statistics, just assuming here. It smacks of the Taliban's attitude toward women. A need to control with punishment thrown in for good measure. In many of the extreme fundamental faiths, fear of women is a component, acted out in all kinds of social restrictions. This bill just screams that at me.

93 prairiefire  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:13:48am

re: #88 Liberal Classic

I am sorry she had to go through that! I get to keep mine, plus all my other plumbing as I have my anemia under control.
"All the male lizards run screaming from the room." I find men become very queasy when discussing a woman's internal plumbing and its problems.

94 reine.de.tout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:14:07am

re: #91 reine.de.tout

It's hard to be anti-abortion (as I am, strongly).
On the one hand, I think it's a terrible choice to have to make.
On the other hand, people will make that choice, and when they do, I would prefer they have access to a legal and safe procedure with appropriate follow-up care, rather than an illegal, must-be-hidden at all costs procedure, in who knows what sort of unsanitary conditions.

But if I'm asked by someone for advice, I will always promote the option of having the child and placing him/her for adoption.


As far as this bill is concerned - no, I do not think government has any right to impose a medical procedure on anyone, invasive or not.

95 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:15:05am

re: #93 prairiefire

I am sorry she had to go through that! I get to keep mine, plus all my other plumbing as I have my anemia under control.
"All the male lizards run screaming from the room." I find men become very queasy when discussing a woman's internal plumbing and its problems.

LALALALALALA!! (covering ears)
///

96 Randall Gross  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:15:12am

re: #65 Renaissance_Man

There's no such thing as a "five minute Ultrasound". While the imaging procedure itself might take five minutes, the preparation, the drive to the clinic, the undressing, the preparation antiseptic and gel, the clean up, the dressing or rearranging clothes, and the drive back home certainly take longer than five minutes.
It's five minutes from the doctor's view, a lot longer from the patient's view. It's also still invasive.

97 prairiefire  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:15:50am

re: #94 reine.de.tout

As far as this bill is concerned - no, I do not think government has any right to impose a medical procedure on anyone, invasive or not.

Reine, you know what. I fell like I am standing on shifting sand.

Will the new health care bill require medical procedures?

98 The Curmudgeon  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:17:21am

Back in 2008, Brad Henry vetoed a "viewpoint discrimination" bill intended to promote creationism in school. He's a good man.

99 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:17:31am

re: #94 reine.de.tout
I agree with you completely. I do believe that while there may be some twisted bastard in there who thinks this is ' punishment' for unwed pregnancy, it is more likely, ( and a more benign view of the legislators) that in their way... albeit misguided....** they believe they are helping women understand the difference between the procedure they are considering and say, a tooth extraction.... because while I understand that this is an agonizing choice for many, there may be some who just prefer or do not understand it.
** please understand I do not think this is a good piece of legislation.

100 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:18:03am

re: #92 Macha

What I find the most interesting about this bill is the hostility toward women contained in it. There is a punishment aspect that I suspect is aimed at women who become pregnant out of wedlock, as that is, I presume, the most common profile of women seeking an abortion.

That's the whole point. Always has been. It's why the most extreme anti-abortion folks are also opposed to emergency contraception and even to birth control itself.

For those people, sex has only one purpose-- procreation. And it has only one place, which is marriage, with the woman's only role in life being an obedient wife, incubator, and mother. Anything that deviates from those ideals should be punished, and anything that gives women control over their sexuality and their bodies must be stopped.

101 Liberal Classic  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:18:51am

re: #93 prairiefire

Uterine fibroids are benign growths, fortunately for us, but thank you so much for your kind words. :) Her gyno has made her do all kinds of uncomfortable things. The only time I had to bend over and spread 'em was when I joined the military a long time ago.

102 reine.de.tout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:19:15am

re: #97 prairiefire

Reine, you know what. I fell like I am standing on shifting sand.

Will the new health care bill require medical procedures?

I'm not aware that it will.

It does require that people purchase insurance., either regular insurance with a private company or through one of the new "pools".

It does seem to require that doctors counsel patients on end-of-life issues, but honestly, most people think about those things and make provisions for it anyhow, if they're smart.

103 tradewind  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:19:18am

PIMF, ' prefer to'.
Well, got into a discussion after all....

Out. Ya'll have a nice day, we're dodging the nasty tornados here.

104 Renaissance_Man  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:19:24am

re: #97 prairiefire

Reine, you know what. I fell like I am standing on shifting sand.

Will the new health care bill require medical procedures?

Not at all.

105 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:19:53am

re: #96 Thanos

There's no such thing as a "five minute Ultrasound". While the imaging procedure itself might take five minutes, the preparation, the drive to the clinic, the undressing, the preparation antiseptic and gel, the clean up, the dressing or rearranging clothes, and the drive back home certainly take longer than five minutes.
It's five minutes from the doctor's view, a lot longer from the patient's view. It's also still invasive.

I have been through both types of ultrasounds. (I needed to determine the gestational age of the little boy out riding his bicycle--which he learned how to do yesterday--as he was an oopsie while I was nursing and I didn't know the date of my last period. Yeah, I know, TMI.)

The vaginal one is invasive. Trust me. The other is not. There is no comparison in terms of comfort and embarrassment.

106 Renaissance_Man  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:20:36am

re: #102 reine.de.tout

I'm not aware that it will.

It does require that people purchase insurance., either regular insurance with a private company or through one of the new "pools".

It does seem to require that doctors counsel patients on end-of-life issues, but honestly, most people think about those things and make provisions for it anyhow, if they're smart.

It doesn't even do that. All it does is create a billing code for it, so if a doctor does provide end-of-life counseling, it can be billed for.

107 mashiach123  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:20:45am

Ummm...ultrasound is not invasive!! and its certainly not a surgical procedure even if it is transvaginal. Which invasive procedure does the bill require?

108 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:21:45am

re: #107 mashiach123

Which invasive procedure does the bill require?

The one where the government was trying to mandate a medical procedure against a woman's will.

109 Charles Johnson  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:21:57am

re: #107 mashiach123

You could try reading either the linked article or the thread.

110 Randall Gross  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:22:35am

re: #105 EmmmieG

I have been through both types of ultrasounds. (I needed to determine the gestational age of the little boy out riding his bicycle--which he learned how to do yesterday--as he was an oopsie while I was nursing and I didn't know the date of my last period. Yeah, I know, TMI.)

The vaginal one is invasive. Trust me. The other is not. There is no comparison in terms of comfort and embarrassment.

I understand that it's not as invasive, but you are interrupting someone's life if you force them to get an ultrasound, you are taking time away from them. It's quick and easy once the doctor starts, but there's paperwork and travel and wait rooms involved as well.

111 Macha  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:23:23am

re: #107 mashiach123

Honey, the minute you stick something in an orifice, it is invasive! I could even make a case for a mamogram being invasive for that matter, which it technically isn't, but I'll betcha a whole bunch of women would agree. A vag ultrasound is most definitely invasive.

112 reine.de.tout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:23:25am

re: #99 tradewind

I agree with you completely. I do believe that while there may be some twisted bastard in there who thinks this is ' punishment' for unwed pregnancy, it is more likely, ( and a more benign view of the legislators) that in their way... albeit misguided...** they believe they are helping women understand the difference between the procedure they are considering and say, a tooth extraction... because while I understand that this is an agonizing choice for many, there may be some who just prefer or do not understand it.
** please understand I do not think this is a good piece of legislation.

Women are fully aware that this procedure is different from a tooth extraction. Fully aware. It's one of the reasons why this is such a terrible and agonizing choice for people to have to make.

And yes, there are twisted people who want to punish unwed pregnancies, when actually the state of being pregnant in itself isn't sinful (for those of us who are religious), it's the unwed sex that's sinful. I don't understand where some people's heads are.

113 King of the Douche, now you may bow  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:23:41am

re: #109 Charles

You could try reading either the linked article or the thread.

"If I wanted to read, I'd go to skool".
-Butthead

114 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:24:00am

re: #87 TampaKnight

Fair enough.

I said it only because I'm not fully in either camp on the issue, and have been called both "anti-life" and "anti-choice", depending on who is trying to prove me wrong that day.

I have always said very very little about abortion..I was adopted...So my alternative wasn't very good...
Can I say this? The GOP paints woman who get abortions as poor black woman that are taking our tax money so they can keep fucking...
The only woman I have ever known that have gotten abortions were rich white woman that fucked up..And they weren't asking for Gov't money to hide the dirty deed...I'm sorry..This has been my experience...Then the GOP slams black women for having 6 kids..Cause they love their children..The only abortions I know of were rich cute white woman that couldn't be bothered with a baby...I'm sorry to say that..But I'm telling the truth..It my be different in your part of the world..But why does this discussion always paint a black mother in such bad light? Because they don't drive a BMW?
I'm calling hypocrisy walking right up the the line of racism...
Sorry to have to say that lizards

115 prairiefire  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:24:31am

re: #99 tradewind

I agree with you completely. I do believe that while there may be some twisted bastard in there who thinks this is ' punishment' for unwed pregnancy, it is more likely, ( and a more benign view of the legislators) that in their way... albeit misguided...** they believe they are helping women understand the difference between the procedure they are considering and say, a tooth extraction... because while I understand that this is an agonizing choice for many, there may be some who just prefer or do not understand it.
** please understand I do not think this is a good piece of legislation.

Save us from the tender ministrations of overweight middle aged white good old boys.

116 reine.de.tout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:25:13am

re: #106 Renaissance_Man

It doesn't even do that. All it does is create a billing code for it, so if a doctor does provide end-of-life counseling, it can be billed for.

My mistake, then.
Either way, it's smart thing for people to think about and make decisions about while they're still able to do it.

117 ryannon  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:25:38am

re: #64 HoosierHoops

I dunno..I'm moving to OK in July..Should be interesting to report from there.
I'm not sure what to expect

From twenty to life if you get out of line.

118 prairiefire  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:26:11am

re: #114 HoosierHoops

I can count on my two hands how many Republicans have told me in confidence "of course I would never vote for that."
Oh yeah? It's part of the party platform.

119 reine.de.tout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:26:23am

re: #107 mashiach123

Ummm...ultrasound is not invasive!! and its certainly not a surgical procedure even if it is transvaginal. Which invasive procedure does the bill require?

Does it even matter if it's invasive or not?
Should the government be mandating medical procedures in certain circumstances?
I vote no.

120 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:27:18am

re: #112 reine.de.tout

when actually the state of being pregnant in itself isn't sinful (for those of us who are religious), it's the unwed sex that's sinful.

That's what my parents kept reminding themselves during my sister's pregancy.

I think we should have girls who are going to give their babies up for adoption wear T-shirts saying "future birth mother" so we can applaud them and buy them cookies and flowers and tell them they are heroes for making a good, but tough choice.

Just my personal opinion, based entirely on personal experiences.

121 Randall Gross  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:27:58am

Under exact medical definitions the practice is not "invasive" as nobody is sticking a needle in to get the image, however as general definitions go it's invasive anyway you cut it. Since most of us don't speak medicalese, the term Invasive fits the bill.

Here's one definition from the standard dictionary:
Tending to intrude or encroach, as upon privacy.

122 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:28:43am

re: #110 Thanos

I understand that it's not as invasive, but you are interrupting someone's life if you force them to get an ultrasound, you are taking time away from them. It's quick and easy once the doctor starts, but there's paperwork and travel and wait rooms involved as well.

Ah, then we are playing word games. Invasive, to me, means having something jammed into an orifice you really would rather keep private, or having part of your body cut into.

Inconvenient is the word I would choose.

123 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:29:34am

re: #63 tradewind

Two posts later, I indicated that I had not read far enough to have complete information. Evidently neither did you, because my PIMF post was pretty speedy.

I'm so glad you posted this because yeah, if you have never had vaginal ultrasound then you have no idea what you are talking about.
For anyone else who is not paying attention the "wand" is about the size of a good sized dildo.
Like the size of 3 fingers being used for a prostate exam.
Like a speculum...only bigger.
For about 10 freaking minutes because they were just having "such a hard time finding that fetus".

And I don't know about anyone else but the hour or so of waiting in the doctor's office with a full bladder, lying flat on a table, having cold jell spread on my belly, then having said bladder near bursting prodded by ultrasound tech is a special form of torture reserved only for pregnant woman so NO ONE, no one can tall me that it is just a simple procedure to get even a non-invasive ultrasound.

124 reine.de.tout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:30:45am

re: #120 EmmmieG

That's what my parents kept reminding themselves during my sister's pregancy.

I think we should have girls who are going to give their babies up for adoption wear T-shirts saying "future birth mother" so we can applaud them and buy them cookies and flowers and tell them they are heroes for making a good, but tough choice.

Just my personal opinion, based entirely on personal experiences.

Same experience in our family (my daughter was pregnant at 15).
Baby was placed with a family my daughter chose. Wonderful couple, had been trying to have a baby for nine years. They love that child as much as we do; and have the resources to give him a life my daughter had neither the resources nor the maturity to give him.

Painful? You betcha. Still is.
The right thing to do?
You betcha. Without a question.

125 prairiefire  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:31:19am

re: #123 webevintage

It's awful.

126 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:31:37am

BTW, does anyone know how many live chickens it takes to pay for a vaginal ultrasound?

127 cliffster  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:32:04am

The first ultrasound you see of your coming child is breathtaking. It's just a little black-and-white image, moving around, but it is beautiful. Chills upon chills upon chills.

These legislators are hoping that girls will see this and change their minds. It's screwed up, and shameful of them to try and use laws to manipulate people. Laws are supposed to protect us. If they think that an unborn child should be protected by laws, they should fight to get those laws in place. At this point, they will have lost before they start, and they know this. But passing oppressive legislation in its stead is corruption of our legal system. Need I talk about all the people who have died defending our freedom, and how this is a slap in the face to them?

128 Macha  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:32:04am

re: #114 HoosierHoops

Hi Hoops,

I was adopted too. But I am strongly pro-choice. I think abortion should be the last option considered, and not used as routine birth control, but it does have it's place. Women from all walks of life opt for abortion. I would like to see statistics on the socio-economic status. It might change the picture of who opts for what. I think the black, poor woman is targeted as she is the most likely to use public services, where the well to do uses private doctors and is much less visible.

Hey, OT, I read in one of your posts some time ago that you grew up in the Napa region. I grew up in Ukiah. We were almost neighbors. Boy has the whole north coast changed.

129 Randall Gross  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:32:34am

re: #122 EmmmieG

Ah, then we are playing word games. Invasive, to me, means having something jammed into an orifice you really would rather keep private, or having part of your body cut into.

Inconvenient is the word I would choose.

Not word games, since most people look at having to undress at the Dr's office as invasive of their privacy, etc. in general usage. If you are going to go by exact definition in medical terms "Invasive" means using a cut or or needle to obtain information.

130 reine.de.tout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:34:11am

re: #127 cliffster

The first ultrasound you see of your coming child is breathtaking. It's just a little black-and-white image, moving around, but it is beautiful. Chills upon chills upon chills.

These legislators are hoping that girls will see this and change their minds. It's screwed up, and shameful of them to try and use laws to manipulate people. Laws are supposed to protect us. If they think that an unborn child should be protected by laws, they should fight to get those laws in place. At this point, they will have lost before they start, and they know this. But passing oppressive legislation in its stead is corruption of our legal system. Need I talk about all the people who have died defending our freedom, and how this is a slap in the face to them?

I remember seeing the heart beating (at 8 weeks) and just falling in love with that baby right away.

Yes, the legislators are hoping people will have that experience. But IMO, there is no way the government should be REQUIRING it. Recommend it? Sure. Require it? No. What would be the next medical requirement imposed by a legislature?

131 Randall Gross  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:36:08am

re: #130 reine.de.tout

My niece, Lillian
Image: babbas-baby.jpg

132 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:36:14am

re: #129 Thanos

Not word games, since most people look at having to undress at the Dr's office as invasive of their privacy, etc. in general usage. If you are going to go by exact definition in medical terms "Invasive" means using a cut or or needle to obtain information.

I didn't undress for the regular type. Just exposed the belly. My cousin has a picture on facebook right now of her belly (7 months) that shows just as much.

Webvintage is right about the bladder, though.

133 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:36:33am

re: #126 webevintage

BTW, does anyone know how many live chickens it takes to pay for a vaginal ultrasound?

Well, according to this converter, a standard OB/Gyn visit costs 41 chickens. After that, I guess you have to multiply accordingly. I've never been pregnant or had an ultrasound, so I have no idea how much more expensive they'd be over a regular checkup.

134 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:36:34am

re: #130 reine.de.tout

I remember seeing the heart beating (at 8 weeks) and just falling in love with that baby right away.

Yes, the legislators are hoping people will have that experience. But IMO, there is no way the government should be REQUIRING it. Recommend it? Sure. Require it? No. What would be the next medical requirement imposed by a legislature?

I called him my "flipper baby"

135 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:37:07am

re: #109 Charles

bah...that's so hard. when do you finish the script that just beams this stuff into our heads? i'm busy contemplating what it must have been like to live with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago over here...

136 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:37:32am

re: #118 prairiefire

I can count on my two hands how many Republicans have told me in confidence "of course I would never vote for that."
Oh yeah? It's part of the party platform.

My views have changed about the GOP.. Last year I sent Charles my street cred about being the Republican of the year several years back...I was very proud of the award...Yes I met President Bush in 2003 and shook his hand..Very proud...
I have moved to the middle the last couple of years and find no Republican except for Daniels i could vote for..The party left me and just jumped off the Cliff with Glenn Beck...Think I'll hang in the middle and see what happens...

137 allegro  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:37:38am

I have repeatedly seen the statistic that one out of three women have had an abortion during their child-bearing years. They are young women unprepared to be parents. They are mothers who can't afford another child. They are women who would die from pregnancy. The reasons don't matter to anyone else but those women who made the decision for themselves and their families. They know damned well what they're doing and the results of the procedure. They are the ONLY ones who can make this decision.

No woman should be even questioned about her desire/need for an abortion least of all be slut-shamed in any manner such as being proposed. It is obscene misogyny at its worst.

138 reine.de.tout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:40:14am

re: #131 Thanos

My niece, Lillian
Image: babbas-baby.jpg

OMG.
Beautiful!
*sniff*
brings tears to my eyes, seeing a new life like that.
Sorry.

139 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:40:38am

re: #107 mashiach123

Ummm...ultrasound is not invasive!! and its certainly not a surgical procedure even if it is transvaginal. Which invasive procedure does the bill require?

you can stick a big round wand up my sensitive male orifice when you pry my firearm from my cold, dead hands.

i would imagine that women feel exactly the same way about this bill, and i'm with them all the way. this has nothing to do with abortion.

shame on my party...

140 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:41:01am

re: #136 HoosierHoops

My views have changed about the GOP.. Last year I sent Charles my street cred about being the Republican of the year several years back...I was very proud of the award...Yes I met President Bush in 2003 and shook his hand..Very proud...
I have moved to the middle the last couple of years and find no Republican except for Daniels i could vote for..The party left me and just jumped off the Cliff with Glenn Beck...Think I'll hang in the middle and see what happens...

you have company!

141 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:41:05am

Meh.
My 1st ultrasound was vaginal so no, there was no warm feelings involved.
Though it was nice to see that little parasite in my uterus and not stuck to a fallopian tube.
The next 3 (see why i have issues with the whole full bladder thing and how much ultrasounds suck) were pretty awesome with the heart and all those toes on that baby.

At 18 he is still a parasite, but he is mine and I love him.
;-)

142 Randall Gross  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:42:15am

re: #138 reine.de.tout

OMG.
Beautiful!
*sniff*
brings tears to my eyes, seeing a new life like that.
Sorry.

She looked even better later :)

Image: lillian.jpg

143 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:42:39am

re: #137 allegro

I have repeatedly seen the statistic that one out of three women have had an abortion during their child-bearing years.

that statistic is wildly overblown. no need to invent numbers which aren't necessary to an already convincing argument.

144 A Man for all Seasons  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:42:59am

re: #128 Macha

Hi Hoops,

I was adopted too. But I am strongly pro-choice. I think abortion should be the last option considered, and not used as routine birth control, but it does have it's place. Women from all walks of life opt for abortion. I would like to see statistics on the socio-economic status. It might change the picture of who opts for what. I think the black, poor woman is targeted as she is the most likely to use public services, where the well to do uses private doctors and is much less visible.

Hey, OT, I read in one of your posts some time ago that you grew up in the Napa region. I grew up in Ukiah. We were almost neighbors. Boy has the whole north coast changed.

Very nice meeting you.. I was born in Firebaugh and grew up in Napa Valley..Just outside of Yountville...I'll bet a trillion dollars pops is outside tending the garden in his goofy ass hat..He still is on dial up and rarely checks his email and thinks cell phones are of the devil..old school dad...
Someday I'll be back in Yountville living at the house with broadband trashing iPad users and killing grapes..LOL

145 cenotaphium  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:43:49am

re: #135 Aceofwhat?

bah...that's so hard. when do you finish the script that just beams this stuff into our heads? i'm busy contemplating what it must have been like to live with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago over here...

Pretty awesome, judging from pictures like this.

Surprisingly not from a creationist resource, but a children's book I really liked as a kid (Dinotopia).

146 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:45:44am

re: #145 cenotaphium

Pretty awesome, judging from pictures like this.

Surprisingly not from a creationist resource, but a children's book I really liked as a kid (Dinotopia).

Dinotopia!! I bought that for my son because i loved it too as a kid. good call!

147 allegro  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:46:08am

re: #143 Aceofwhat?

that statistic is wildly overblown. no need to invent numbers which aren't necessary to an already convincing argument.

I don't know that it is. If you have better information, please share. Most women do not discuss this matter due to the shaming in our culture for a procedure for which no shame should be attached. I can pretty much guarantee that there are women in your circle, likely in your own family, who have had abortions that you will never know about.

148 prairiefire  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:47:21am

re: #141 webevintage

Mine was uncomfortable because of the fibroid.

I did have an amniocentesis done while pregnant with my daughter. She swam right past the needle. My husband and I could see it on the screen as the Dr. and nurse were looking elsewhere. My husband said "he's right there!" and then almost fell over.

149 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:49:01am

re: #147 allegro

I can pretty much guarantee that there are women in your circle, likely in your own family, who have had abortions that you will never know about.

When you consider that abortion providers have reported women who picket them coming for an abortion themselves or for their daughters we can all be pretty sure everyone knows someone.

150 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:55:37am

re: #49 tradewind

The best picture-- which was the metric-- would be achieved through an invasive one.

I'm glad your doctor has spared you that indignity, as it really would be an unnecessary procedure.

At the women's health clinic my fiancée volunteers at, anything under 12 weeks they use a vaginal probe-- to get a clearer picture.

151 Aceofwhat?  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:02:16am

re: #147 allegro

I don't know that it is. If you have better information, please share. Most women do not discuss this matter due to the shaming in our culture for a procedure for which no shame should be attached. I can pretty much guarantee that there are women in your circle, likely in your own family, who have had abortions that you will never know about.

really? you mean you have this strong stance but have never taken the 30 seconds required to hop on to a government website and figure out if you're within the bounds of reality?

most women do not discuss the matter - that's their business.

but PROVIDERS report how many procedures they perform.

[Link: www.census.gov...]

it's about 20 per 1000 women per year. can you do the math on that, or do you need me to show you that too?

here's the breakdown by characteristic. note that in 2000, only 20% of abortions were performed on women who had NOT had a prior live birth.
[Link: www.census.gov...]
that statistic is relatively meaningless except to point out that broad-based assertions of "x% of women have had an abortion" are misleading and unhelpful to almost any discussion.

152 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:08:45am

re: #151 Aceofwhat?

I'm having trouble figuring out the math on 20 women per 1000 per year over time; does that indicate that at any given time, out of 1000 women, 20 have had an abortion, or would it indicate a cumulative factor?

I mean, I think the number we want is, per 1000 women, how many have had abortions, not just in that year.

153 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:09:04am

re: #120 EmmmieG

That's what my parents kept reminding themselves during my sister's pregancy.

I think we should have girls who are going to give their babies up for adoption wear T-shirts saying "future birth mother" so we can applaud them and buy them cookies and flowers and tell them they are heroes for making a good, but tough choice.

Just my personal opinion, based entirely on personal experiences.

A couple of years ago, one of my students was pregnant. She was fifteen, planned to marry the father someday, and was going to keep the baby.

The mom of another student pulled me aside and said she had some baby things saved from when her youngest was born, and her son said a girl at school was pregnant, and would she like to have them? Maybe we could have a little shower?

When I suggested this to other people at the school (and this was a super-progressive, oh-God-we-are-so-damn-liberal school), people kind of recoiled. If we had a shower, would we encourage the other girls to get pregnant? And I'm thinking, 'you know, a baby needs onesies and bottle warmers and stuff regardless of how old its mother is, and it's not like the other girls can't see how much stress she's going through, which is why they want to help'.

Of course, this is the same school where, when I said I'd like to have a 'going into labor' plan in place, and make sure I had the young lady's doctor's phone number handy, they just sort of looked at me. People, I took a midwifery class once, but that does not mean I want to try to deliver a teenage girl's first child on the floor of my freaking classroom.

It's like if the mother is a teenager, we don't realize this is the same biological process.

154 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:13:15am

More on when transvaginal techniques are used:

[Link: www.radiologyinfo.org...]

Sometimes the radiologist determines that a transvaginal scan needs to be performed. This technique often provides improved, more detailed images of the uterus and ovaries. This method of scanning is especially useful in early pregnancy.

So, in other words, during the exact time period a woman is mostly likely to seek an abortion.

155 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:14:13am

re: #151 Aceofwhat?

really? you mean you have this strong stance but have never taken the 30 seconds required to hop on to a government website and figure out if you're within the bounds of reality?

most women do not discuss the matter - that's their business.

but PROVIDERS report how many procedures they perform.

[Link: www.census.gov...]

it's about 20 per 1000 women per year. can you do the math on that, or do you need me to show you that too?

here's the breakdown by characteristic. note that in 2000, only 20% of abortions were performed on women who had NOT had a prior live birth.
[Link: www.census.gov...]
that statistic is relatively meaningless except to point out that broad-based assertions of "x% of women have had an abortion" are misleading and unhelpful to almost any discussion.

Er, 20 per 1000 in one year. A woman's potential childbearing years may stretch, in these days, thirty years or more. A woman who had an abortion in 1975 when she was twenty will not show up in any subsequent year if she doesn't have another abortion.

Someone who can figure that out, crunch the numbers for me.

156 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:15:10am

re: #155 SanFranciscoZionist

It's hard because new women are being added, and older women being taken away, from the population.

157 allegro  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:18:12am

re: #151 Aceofwhat?

Want to do some math? OK, I'll bite.

Let's say there are 150,000,000 women in the U.S., about half of the population. About a third of them are of child-bearing age, so we have 50,000,000. With a woman having about a 30 year period during which she might conceive, that brings the number to 1,666,667. 20 abortions per 1000 women in any given year, means 1,000,000 abortions per year.

This comes to a percentage of almost 60% of women having an abortion during her child-bearing years.

158 Eclectic Infidel  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:20:00am

re: #67 TampaKnight

Lol, I love the use of "anti-choice".

I guess I'll start calling all abortion proponents "anti-life".

You can do that, but you're already late to the scene. Pro-birth/anti-choice advocates have been using that language for as long as I can remember - I was born in the late 60s.

Just wondering, are you still laughing hysterically in front of your monitor?

159 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:20:04am

re: #156 Obdicut

It's hard because new women are being added, and older women being taken away, from the population.

Not to mention the issue of whether a single woman has several abortions subsequently, or only a single one at whatever stage in her life.

However, over, say the thirty years during which that thousand women go from fifteen to forty-five (a very moderate childbearing zone), we get up to 600 abortions being performed on the 1000 of them.

Obviously, that's an incredibly crude take on the stats. But it does indicate that allegro's numbers are probably well within the ballpark.

160 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:29:25am

Personally, I think the numbers matter far less than the legality of the procedure. Whether it's a thousand or a million abortions performed yearly, I would rather see them done in a safe, hygienic environment by medically trained professionals than in some back alley somewhere.

Of course, my ideal is comprehensive sex ed, cheaper, more easily accessible birth control, and emergency contraception given to anyone who requests it, no questions asked. If the same anti-abortion loons who pushed for this bill instead pushed for greater access to birth control and emergency contraception, they'd go a lot farther towards reducing the abortion rate in this country.

I suspect they know it, too, but bills like these are not about reducing the abortion rate. They're about shaming and punishing women for having sex.

161 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:33:50am

re: #160 Lidane

Personally, I think the numbers matter far less than the legality of the procedure. Whether it's a thousand or a million abortions performed yearly, I would rather see them done in a safe, hygienic environment by medically trained professionals than in some back alley somewhere.

Of course, my ideal is comprehensive sex ed, cheaper, more easily accessible birth control, and emergency contraception given to anyone who requests it, no questions asked. If the same anti-abortion loons who pushed for this bill instead pushed for greater access to birth control and emergency contraception, they'd go a lot farther towards reducing the abortion rate in this country.

I suspect they know it, too, but bills like these are not about reducing the abortion rate. They're about shaming and punishing women for having sex.

I'm still an old Clintonian on this one. As a society, we should strive for abortion to be safe, legal, and rare.

Not meaning to harp on the numbers, but I try to analyze stats that get thrown out at me, because I am not good with math, and I don't like making false assumptions based on numbers as a result.

162 reine.de.tout  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:35:21am

re: #142 Thanos

She looked even better later :)

Image: lillian.jpg

CUTE!
Just precious.
I love those photos where they look a bit out of sorts.

163 QueenEsther  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:39:23am

The article does not imply that the ultrasound is invasive or internal.

For informational purposes, most prenatal ultrasounds are external (not internal), with a tech putting a little goo on your stomach and pressing on it with a wand to project an image on a tv screen. During my own pregnancy, 3 years ago, which was considered high risk, I had many ultrasounds. None of which were invasive or internal. I had my clothing intact at all times. The only intrusive aspect of one the procedures was the tech telling me the gender of my child, without asking me first.

OT: Charles, I am disappointed you didn't respond to my email.

164 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:41:10am

re: #161 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm still an old Clintonian on this one. As a society, we should strive for abortion to be safe, legal, and rare.

See, that's my general take on it. I think it should be legal. I think it should be done in a safe environment by trained professionals, and with safeguards in place should there be any complications. It IS surgery after all, and every surgery carries risk.

As for rare, that's why I'm so staunchly in favor of greater access to birth control and to emergency contraception, and why I strongly favor comprehensive sex ed starting at a young age instead of the fail known as "abstinence only". I believe that the more people know about their bodies and how they work, and the greater ease they have at getting birth control, the better. And if the condom breaks, or a woman gets assaulted, or whatever, I'd rather see them be able to just take the emergency contraceptives from the start than have the abortion later.

165 SanFranciscoZionist  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:41:12am

re: #162 reine.de.tout

CUTE!
Just precious.
I love those photos where they look a bit out of sorts.

That is a damn cute picture.

One of my coworkers brought his three-week-old son to work a couple days ago. The baby is Scottish and Persian, and he was two week premature. He is the teeniest baby I have ever seen in the flesh, and he is absolutely adorable.

(His dad is a big, big man, so he looks even cuter holding this teeny weeny thing and trying to give it a bottle.)

So adorable.

166 prairiefire  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:44:48am

re: #165 SanFranciscoZionist

It's getting your hormones bubbling.

167 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:48:20am

re: #163 QueenEsther

This has all been discussed throughout the thread already.

168 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 12:08:01pm

re: #163 QueenEsther

You win the "Didn't bother to read the thread" prize. Congrats.

169 Varek Raith  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 1:58:18pm

re: #163 QueenEsther

Would ya like Charles to get ya a pizza???
:rollseyes:

170 Reginald Perrin  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 2:30:30pm

re: #163 QueenEsther

Charles, I am disappointed you didn't respond to my email.

Your most recent comment before the one today was made over 13 months ago, try checking your mailbox in May 2011.

171 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 2:39:22pm

Probably going to get downdinged for this but:

I find that an abortion is not a choice at all but rather the pressurized outcome of one or more of the following:

1. the failure of family and society to provide adequate mercy and love for a pregnant mother (wed or unwed) who cannot adequately support her future child in an independent manner and who, along with society, operates under the false assumption that life is supposed to be independent and self-sufficient and not lived out in community with others.

2. Hedonistic misogyny practiced by both men and women that a woman’s body and sexuality are only objects to be used by others for pleasure. A child gets in the way of this and thus should be done away with.

3. A bigotry that assumes that only perfect life should be allowed to live.

4. Fear and flight by a woman from a society that misogynisticaly assumes that pregnancy is a punishment visited upon woman for this sins, whether personally (such as being raped and getting pregnant being a sin) or communal (the fallen nature of womankind). Even in wedlock the assumption exists that a woman is a “baby factory” that is saved through childbearing and thus something which must be endured.

----

It is not exactly fair to label all conservatives “anti-choice”. Some in fact are anti-choice, that is to say that some conservative Christians do in fact view there being a choice between letting the child live and aborting the child. Being a Catholic I strongly cannot be labeled “anti-choice” because I do not find abortion to be a choice as if one was choosing flavors of ice cream. Because part of my faith insists on the reality of human dignity all human individuals have a right to life that exists simply from the fact that they have being. As such, one does not have the leeway to choose between taking away the life of an unborn child or letting that child live. The choice is always for life and being in all its plural form manifestations so that the activity of abortion is viewed not as a choice but rather as subsuming to the oppression of external forces that aim away from pluralformity and the multiplicity of life and human dignity.

However some protestant theologies do not believe in human dignity, or rather to say they believe that human dignity was lost do to the fall. Human life is not inherently dignified and one can in fact choose between life and death of another human being (primarily because no one is innocent and all life is already dead). On the question of abortion, they view that choice is possible but that the proper choice is to let the child live. These protestants are properly labeled as “anti-choice” because they are against the choice of abortion. Abortion is viewed not as against the direct command of God but rather the less optimal choice of the two. This view is expounded at length in The Moral Vision of the New Testament by Richard Hays chapter 18 Abortion. Hays is one of the foremost Protestant Moral Theologians in this country.

----

The law in Oklahoma that is in question is simply the attempt to humanize the child in the womb in a society that has dehumanized children and prenatal babies. However it does so by mandating a procedure with dehumanizes the pregnant mother when the procedure is forced upon her(vaginal ultrasound). As such, IT IS A GOOD THING that this law was shot down.

---

172 Interesting Times  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:00:17pm

re: #171 Liet_Kynes

So in what category would you put the women here? I'm Not Sorry

173 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:05:04pm

re: #163 QueenEsther

The article does not imply that the ultrasound is invasive or internal.

Whatever.
The law is about invasive vaginal ultrasounds.
and I think I'll just post this again:

I'm so glad you posted this because yeah, if you have never had vaginal ultrasound then you have no idea what you are talking about.
For anyone else who is not paying attention the "wand" is about the size of a good sized dildo.
Like the size of 3 fingers being used for a prostate exam.
Like a speculum...only bigger.
For about 10 freaking minutes because they were just having "such a hard time finding that fetus".

And I don't know about anyone else but the hour or so of waiting in the doctor's office with a full bladder, lying flat on a table, having cold jell spread on my belly, then having said bladder near bursting prodded by ultrasound tech is a special form of torture reserved only for pregnant woman so NO ONE, no one can tall me that it is just a simple procedure to get even a non-invasive ultrasound.

174 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:07:43pm

re: #171 Liet_Kynes

I find that an abortion is not a choice at all but rather the pressurized outcome of one or more of the following:

Or there is always that group of women that do not like kids, don't want to have kids, avoid being around kids and just don't want to spend 9 months pregnant.
Right or wrong that is their right.

175 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:10:41pm

re: #81 JasonA

Let me get this straight: gov't making citizens buy health insurance = unacceptable threat to liberty and freedom. Gov't making women seeking abortion go through an ultrasound = the way it should be. Just trying to clear things up.

Very few people at LGF are against mandated governmental medical procedures. The unified LGF view on the need for mandated vaccinations is prove of that. It is unfair to suggest that conservatives here who are looking into mandated governmental procedures as a means to eliminate abortion as somehow violating their conservative principles. Being an American conservative means favoring a government that promotes the public good in a limited manner by standing in the way of those that would harm the public good while enabling people to achieve life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Conservatives would strongly object to the government being the provider of happiness and of the good (and rightly or wrongly a government that would do that would be viewed as “socalist”).

A conservative would say a government making citizens buy a specific form of health insurance is infringing upon liberty because one should be able to have the liberty to maintain their health in the manner that will best facilitate their life and their pursuit of happiness. Mandated health insurance is completely different than mandated health care though the Democrats have completely conflated the issues in their arguments (and the Republicans are often clueless about the differences) in their attempt to make the type and form of health care that people receive the same regardless of wealth or social status.

A conservative would say that mandating a procedure (one that doesn’t forcibly dehumanize a woman if done against her will – the fact that a procedure might be uncomfortable doesn’t mean that it is dehumanizing) that would reduce abortions would be a limited government trying to stand between those that would harm the woman and her child preventing both, and especially the child, from achieving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by the termination of the life of the unborn child.

re: #84 Charles

The essential fact about social conservatives who are opposed to abortion in all circumstances is that they are trying to take away freedom of choice from pregnant women.

*kindly* For what I believe, and those that believe like me, that would be a resultant fact, but it is not an essential fact. Those that believe like me (we can be categorized as social conservatives) are not arguing about the choices of the woman, but rather the rights of all life including the life in the womb. If a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, then the unborn female child in the womb has a right to do what she wants with HER own body. If it should be allowable to ask the woman if she wills to abort her child and do so if she says yes, then it is equally an option, once there is the technology, to ask the child if she wants to kill her mother and do so if she says yes. Neither the woman nor the child has the “freedom of choice” to kill the other, but rather the morality of the range of their actions are the result of the essential facts about their mutual human dignity.

176 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:12:09pm

re: #173 webevintage

Whatever.
The law is about invasive vaginal ultrasounds.
and I think I'll just post this again:

I'm so glad you posted this because yeah, if you have never had vaginal ultrasound then you have no idea what you are talking about.
For anyone else who is not paying attention the "wand" is about the size of a good sized dildo.
Like the size of 3 fingers being used for a prostate exam.
Like a speculum...only bigger.
For about 10 freaking minutes because they were just having "such a hard time finding that fetus".

And I don't know about anyone else but the hour or so of waiting in the doctor's office with a full bladder, lying flat on a table, having cold jell spread on my belly, then having said bladder near bursting prodded by ultrasound tech is a special form of torture reserved only for pregnant woman so NO ONE, no one can tall me that it is just a simple procedure to get even a non-invasive ultrasound.

Brought to you by the GOVERNMENT, voted in by people who scream about government interference. Take a nickel out of my pocket and it's fascist horrors that would have given Hitler nightmares, but this kind of bullshit is all prim and proper.

177 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:18:35pm

re: #175 Liet_Kynes

[a bunch of insane shit]

Congratulations. You have posted the most deranged thing I've read all day. To put that in context, I've been reading lkml.org and clicking the "random article" link on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Carry on.

178 Kruk  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:31:49pm

re: #40 Liberal Classic

Speaking as a libertarian-leaning person, I find that right-wing Republicans are in favor of governmental authority when it advances their social conservative agenda.

As a cynic, I find right-wing Republicans are in favour of government authority when it makes the lives of women, minorities or gays more difficult. Witness the fawning over the Arizona law that allows police to stop and question anyone "suspected of being an illegal immigrant", and makes people liable for arrest if they don't have ID with them. That includes legal immigrants and US citizens. If the wording had been "anyone suspected of a crime" or anything else that meant the rights of whites could be infringed, you would bet the Wingnut sites would be crying tyranny and calling for revolution right now.

As John Stewart would say to these people, "Go f**K yourselves."

179 JoyousMN  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:36:05pm

re: #175 Liet_Kynes


If a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, then the unborn female child in the womb has a right to do what she wants with HER own body. If it should be allowable to ask the woman if she wills to abort her child and do so if she says yes, then it is equally an option, once there is the technology, to ask the child if she wants to kill her mother and do so if she says yes.

You do realize that this doesn't even begin to describe the real world that all of us inhabit?

People who don't trust the "government" in ANY respect want to turn over the most fundamental, PERSONAL decision a human can make: whether or not to have a child. I can completely understand wanting to wish abortion away, but it's not going to happen. So the choice we have to make as a society is, Who makes the choice?

In a contest between a woman and "the government," having the woman make the choice is (IMO) the only possible answer.

180 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:37:33pm

re: #175 Liet_Kynes

...a procedure (one that doesn’t forcibly dehumanize a woman if done against her will – the fact that a procedure might be uncomfortable doesn’t mean that it is dehumanizing)...

Any procedure that is unwanted, yet is done forcibly to a woman, is dehumanizing. I have several other problems with your last two comments, but I doubt that I can discuss them with a person who believes they can force an unwanted, uncomfortable procedure on a person without being dehumanizing.

181 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:41:12pm

re: #100 Lidane

That's the whole point. Always has been. It's why the most extreme anti-abortion folks are also opposed to emergency contraception and even to birth control itself.

For those people, sex has only one purpose-- procreation. And it has only one place, which is marriage, with the woman's only role in life being an obedient wife, incubator, and mother. Anything that deviates from those ideals should be punished, and anything that gives women control over their sexuality and their bodies must be stopped.

That is not accurate. Some extreme anti-abortion folks believe that women are saved only through child birth and it is they who view sex as having only one purpose. I am opposed to abortion and contraception AND I teach in unity with the Church that sex has three purposes 1.) it brings the spouses closer together 2.) its pleasurable 3.) it opens the door for new life. If sex only had the purpose of procreation, then bareness would be a sin and a curse, which it is not. Virginity (and on the other end widowhood) would also be technically an abnormal state for an adult woman.

re: #172 publicityStunted

So in what category would you put the women here? I'm Not Sorry

Depends on the specific case. One cannot simply generalize for everyone as the reasons each have for why they did what they did is different.

Though obviously the first page that you have there is hedonism or epicureanism running on some sort of Kantian or post-Kantian metaphysics.

Take for example Abby’s [Link: www.imnotsorry.net...] only because she is the very first story there.

She is in category 1: “I know that I would not have been able to provide a child with any stable life”

She is in category 2: “I made the mistake of having sex with an ex-boyfriend…I distinctly remember him saying ‘You’ll be fine’”…” my ex-boyfriend was not someone that I would have ever wanted to raise a child with”

Obviously some woman have no problem with their abortions. Not arguing that.

re: #174 webevintage

Or there is always that group of women that do not like kids, don't want to have kids, avoid being around kids and just don't want to spend 9 months pregnant.
Right or wrong that is their right.

That would be Category 2. The ability to perform an action in no way makes an action a right. If an action is unethical or immoral, no one has a right to that action, even if they have the ability to make it. Also a right is not something that is determined either by majority opinion or legal opinion.

182 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:45:26pm

re: #171 Liet_Kynes

Yes, but you're a religious zealot.

183 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:45:44pm

re: #181 Liet_Kynes

Are you opposed to the separation of church and state?

184 Bentis Fughazi  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:48:56pm

Okay, "invasive" has a specific clinical meaning. Maybe the word we want, then, is "intrusive".

And to any guys who think it's no big deal, I would pose two questions:
1. Would you consider a prostate examination "intrusive"?
2. Would you like the government mandating said exam?

This is a story about intimidation at it's heart.

185 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:51:12pm

re: #181 Liet_Kynes

That would be Category 2. The ability to perform an action in no way makes an action a right. If an action is unethical or immoral, no one has a right to that action, even if they have the ability to make it. Also a right is not something that is determined either by majority opinion or legal opinion.

"Hedonistic misogyny"
Seriously? I'm married, we have sex and I don't think you can label that hedonistic at all.
But because there is always the chance the I (GOD FORBID even this late in the game) could still get knocked up and no BC method is fool proof I will always, always, always fight for the right to have an abortion.
My body, my life, my choice.


Color me selfish if you want.
I never want to have another child.
Ever.
Never, ever again.
(love my 18 year old, do not want any more. )

186 Obdicut  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 3:53:24pm

re: #185 webevintage

You're just sane. We're not animals, and we shouldn't have to bear children like animals do. It should be at a time of our choosing, so that we can give children everything they deserve.

187 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 4:17:02pm

re: #181 Liet_Kynes

That is not accurate.

Sure it is. Female sexuality has always been perceived as a threat. In fact, if you go back through the writings of many early theologians, even up through the Middle Ages and beyond, women were openly blamed for there being sin at all. The only way for a woman to be "saved" from all that was to either endure the pain of childbirth as mandated by God or cloister herself off from all sexuality, if she was even capable of redemption at all.

Some extreme anti-abortion folks believe that women are saved only through child birth and it is they who view sex as having only one purpose.

They're quoting the New Testament on that:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. -- 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NIV)

Women are not only blamed for the Fall of Man, but condemned to painful childbirth as a divine punishment from God. And in the New Testament, it's said outright that their only means of salvation is by giving birth.

Many of those attitudes still color the hardcore anti-abortion movement. In their minds, female sexuality has to be controlled with the threat of pregnancy for sex outside of marriage. The whole concept of a woman in charge of her own body and her own pleasure is inconceivable to these lunatics. It's why even the more reasonable stances of birth control and emergency contraception are rejected, and it's the basis for vile, draconian bills like this one that was just vetoed.

188 mommydoc  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 4:28:08pm

Quickly skimming over the comments here. I understand this is an incredibly emotional issue from all aspects. That being said, I am a board certified OBGYN who has been extensively trained in first and second trimester abortion. I am strongly pro-choice but view every abortion as a tragedy, alhough most are still the lesser of 2 evils.

One of the first things one learns about medical decisionmaking is that anecdotal information is not as reliable as truly evidence based medicine. While many of the commenters here may have first hand experience with being pregnant and having ultrasounds, it doesn't mean that they have a true understanding of the process. In early pregnancy, especially if the patient is not thin, the developing fetus is usually more accurately visualized and measured transvaginally. Typically, an abdominal ultrasound is done first and the bladder must be full since sound waves travel better through fluid. Then the bladder is emptied and the transvaginal probe is placed. Accurate dating is crucial, as the procedure becomes riskier for the pregnant patient as the pregnancy progresses. The newer probes are much narrower: the transducer tip is generally 3-4 cm in diameter on a 1 cm stalk.

While I am generally not in favor of governmet mandating how I practice, I do believe that accurate dating is crucial. I personally worked for a provider who routinely documented that pregnancies were 2 weeks earlier than actuality because he insisted on rejecting the universally-accepted convention of dating pregnancies by the observed or putative last menstrual period (menstrual weeks) and used implied conceptual weeks to make patients seem to be not as far along. Requiring reliable dating is in the patient's best interest, and by the time one can get accurate transabdominal measurements, in most cases, the pregnancy is approaching second trimester and can't be performed in many clinical settings and some jurisdictions.

While it may very well be true that this was a misogynistic approach aimed at limiting access to elective abortion, it probably does better
protect the patient. I've seen some pretty incompetent ultrasound "dating" even at Planned Parenthood. And transvaginal ultrasound pales in discomfort as compared with vaginal delivery, medical abortion, or surgical abortion with paracervical block and only conscious sedation.

As an aside, posting from an iPhone is really sucky, Charles. Huge keylag and minimal ability to see one's post while preparing it. Sorry.

189 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 4:29:15pm

re: #179 JoyousMN

You do realize that this doesn't even begin to describe the real world that all of us inhabit?

People who don't trust the "government" in ANY respect want to turn over the most fundamental, PERSONAL decision a human can make: whether or not to have a child. I can completely understand wanting to wish abortion away, but it's not going to happen. So the choice we have to make as a society is, Who makes the choice?

In a contest between a woman and "the government," having the woman make the choice is (IMO) the only possible answer.

Actually it does describe the real world. You are just assuming that the ability for speech and high intelligence is what gives a human the right to end the life of another human. I reject that. If the mother has the right to end the life of her child then likewise the child has the right to end the life of the mother. The only difference between the mother and the child is that of time. Just because we cannot communicate with the child in the womb doesn’t lessen the rights of that child. If so, then we can do what we please with the mentally disabled and other unfortunates.

Conservatives don’t distrust the “government”. That is a libertarian or an archaist. Conservatives trust and want government, they just want it small and limited.

See that is exactly the thing, a conservative doesn’t believe that a government imposes morality rather it safeguards morality. A conservative government seeks to help people pursue the good and does not tell them which good and which manner to pursue. For example, it does not provide heath care, but rather provides a plural form of choice in regards to health care.

When it comes to the life of the child, it is not a contest between the woman and the government in who gets to make the choice. Rather the woman is to protect the life of her child from a government that would seek to take it away (China for example and their government mandated abortions) and a government should seek to protect the life of a child from a doctor who would wish to take it away (medical abortion).

re: #182 Obdicut

Yes, but you're a religious zealot.

I am Catholic. I’ll take that as a complement.

re: #183 wrenchwench

Are you opposed to the separation of church and state?

I believe that the State and the Church should never be conflated. They are separate spheres though sometimes they overlap. The State does not control the Church. The Church does not control the State. I am opposed to Theocracy as a form of government of nations. To use Wikipedia though “Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".” Those I am fine with regardless of whether or not they are Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan, Scientologist (that would be some crazy government there).

I am Catholic. The Catholic Church doesn’t exist to enshrine a particular form of government here on earth.

-----

bbl good conversation all

190 wrenchwench  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 4:59:20pm

re: #188 mommydoc

I appreciate input from an expert. Especially since you took the trouble to do it from an iPhone!

How regularly would an ultrasound be recommended in the case of a supposed first trimester abortion just to be sure it is a first trimester abortion? Or is the concern likelier to be making sure a second trimester is not a third trimester procedure?

191 mommydoc  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 5:16:34pm

re: #190 wrenchwench

Hi wrenchwench. Quick answer since I'm running late. Once you have an accurate US (interpretation of accuracy is dependent on operator skill and training) you are done. So it usually only requires one US, as long as there is at least an embryo with a recognizable crown and rump. If limbs are visible, one is obligated to do 3 measurements (biparietal diameter, femur length and abdominal circumference). It's only if one can't see more than a gestational sac or yolk sac that it needs to be repeated. So only 1 US is needed for accurate dating.

As an aside, the daughter of a friend had 3 US at planned parenthood for a
desired pregnancy and the NURSE (seriously, not a doctor or US tech) couldn't find the fetal pole and told her she probably had an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy. She was actually 8 weeks along and if they had done a transvaginal they would have known.

It's not as easy as those who want to believe that midlevels are as capable and that all MDs are in the pocket of big pharma would like to believe. That's why we train for so long. To develop important skills and clinical judgment. Medicine can't be practiced by cookbook.

192 bouncer111  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 5:27:28pm

Convenience aside, who speaks for the child?

Beyond a certain developmental bright line, abortion becomes a torture murder. At that point the child feels intense pain as it is destroyed, often slowly, by any of the various procedures: saline injection, dismemberment by forceps or suction, cranial puncture, etc. And notice that no effort is EVER made to anesthetize the child...too expensive!

The mother's life does come first, but her convenience is irrelevant. Some argue rape or incest justifies the act, but the child's interests certainly do not.

The clear solution to this problem is to strongly promote prevention of unwanted pregnancy while simultaneously enforcing the strongest legal deterrent: conviction of first degree murder.

193 Reginald Perrin  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 5:33:55pm

re: #192 bouncer111

while simultaneously enforcing the strongest legal deterrent: conviction of first degree murder

For someone making their very first comment here, you sure came loaded for bear.

194 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 5:48:27pm

re: #192 bouncer111

GAZE

195 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 6:39:33pm

re: #185 webevintage


"Hedonistic misogyny"
Seriously? I'm married, we have sex and I don't think you can label that hedonistic at all.
But because there is always the chance the I (GOD FORBID even this late in the game) could still get knocked up and no BC method is fool proof I will always, always, always fight for the right to have an abortion.
My body, my life, my choice.

Seriously. If sex is limited to only pleasure that is hedonism. Rejecting the fecundity and "more" of a sexual encounter truncates the human experience. If that is what you want, that is what you want and you have the ability to pick less than the totality. Just don't be surprised that in picking less, you end up with less.

Your body, your choice, yes. BUT BUT having another body inside of your body doesn’t give you the right of life and death over that person. Upholding “your body your choice” for yourself necessitates upholding it for other people including the person inside of you. Else it is not about one's right to one's own person but rather simply the exercise of raw power and "might makes right" (I have the power of adult level cognition -- I get to choose! Yay me!).

re: #186 Obdicut

We're not animals, and we shouldn't have to bear children like animals do. It should be at a time of our choosing, so that we can give children everything they deserve.

I think you and I would agree that above all a child deserves life and love and that it is a failure of humanity when a child is deprive of these things.

We would agree that we should bear children in a human way and not as animals do. Where we would disagree is what that looks like. I would say that animals don’t have sex because they desire babies. Their little minds don’t dwell upon having a child and continuing their lives through the next generation. Animals have sex because instinct drives them to it and they derive pleasure from it and afterwards they find themselves pregnant. On the other hand, humans choose to make sex something sacred – for Catholics sex is a sacred act, yes even liturgical as it is the consummation of the marriage vows. The sexual bond between man and women is raised up and sanctified so that we may consciously choose the choice of life, that life itself is good at a fundamental level. This is how I would say that we do not behave like animals – when sex is not sex but it has meaning, profundity, and fecundity.

196 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 6:57:23pm

re: #195 Liet_Kynes

Seriously. If sex is limited to only pleasure that is hedonism.

If you're talking in terms of random encounters with strangers, then an argument could be made about that. If, however, you're talking about sex within the confines of a relationship -- ANY relationship, married or otherwise -- then that's total bullshit.

If I have sex with my boyfriend for the sheer joy of it, and without any deeper "sacred" meaning other than just wanting to have sex with him in that moment, that doesn't automatically turn me into a hedonist. It means that I have a healthy enough grasp of my sexuality to be able to enjoy it on its own terms and without apology. Not every orgasm has to be divinely approved, even if I'm calling out for a deity I don't believe in at the time.

197 hokiepride  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 7:00:35pm

Big government social "conservatism" is not conservatism at all. It is merely authoritarianism disguised as conservatism. Socon tyrants should be encouraged to form their own party and leave the GOP. The GOP should pursue pragmatic fiscal and national security conservatism and tell the socon mullahs to GTH

198 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 7:10:07pm

re: #187 Lidane


Sure it is. Female sexuality has always been perceived as a threat. In fact, if you go back through the writings of many early theologians, even up through the Middle Ages and beyond, women were openly blamed for there being sin at all. The only way for a woman to be "saved" from all that was to either endure the pain of childbirth as mandated by God or cloister herself off from all sexuality, if she was even capable of redemption at all.

Some extreme anti-abortion folks believe that women are saved only through child birth and it is they who view sex as having only one purpose.


They're quoting the New Testament on that:

"… But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. -- 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NIV)

…. it's said outright that their only means of salvation is by giving birth.

Many of those attitudes still color the hardcore anti-abortion movement. ... It's why even the more reasonable stances of birth control and emergency contraception are rejected, and it's the basis for vile, draconian bills like this one that was just vetoed.

Obviously you are not a Patristic Theologian else you would know better. Female sexuality is perceived as a threat by some individuals here and there especially Protestant Theologians of the Reformation period, but if you read Patristic writings in comparison with pagan writings of the time period, the Church is VERY pro woman. And to say that the early Church was anti-woman is simply slanderous. Want some misogyny , read some Gnosticism. Itis not possible to argue that the Church is anti-woman when 1.) the Church is female 2.) the singular boast of humanity is a woman (Mary) 3.) Women are typically depicted as intrinsically closer to God than man. 4.) Fallen humanity is depicted as masculine. When the early Church Fathers talk about the Fall, yes Eve gets mentioned but Adam is hardly innocent. After all it is not the Sin of Eve that scripture and the Fathers speak of but rather the Sin of Adam.

Yes I see you are using the NIV – not so hot a translation. Also your argument that is afterward about salvation being dependent upon child birth is a Protestant interpretation of said passage (though obviously different Protestant branches don’t agree on various interpretations). It is not the Catholic understanding to be sure. Remember we got our monasteries and convents forcibly shut down in Protestant countries because they taught that women needed to be pregnant. Yes many of these attitudes still color the anti-abortion movement. It is unfortunate and wrong. Women are not strictly baby factories and shouldn’t be treated as such. They are people not objects of pleasure and human production. For a Catholic the fact that a woman is a woman is not the determining factor of how her life must be lived. Sure there are limitations, but men are also limited by their sex.

I would suggest that most anti-abortion Protestants are pro-contraception (but not pro the various abortifacts that are passed off as “contraception”).

From a Patristic point of view, the theology never speaks of the need to control the abuse of female sexuality without the need to control the abuse of male sexuality.

Sex outside of marriage is disproportionately abusive towards woman (not just physically but psychologically as women relate to their partners differently than men.)
Though some Christians view that women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, I do not agree with that. Though some Christians are misogynist that is not a traditional view. I do not see the OK bill as stemming from that opinion but rather the opinion that the life of the child should be given the option to continue to exist.

199 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 7:30:38pm
Convenience aside, who speaks for the child?

No one speaks for the child because it is not viewed as a child. There is an extreme minority of people who will call a child in the womb a child and still find it a good thing that the child could be aborted. Pain killers are not used not because it is inconvenient but because it is a tacit acknowledgement that the child in the womb is deserving of rights. As soon as one singular right is given legally to the child in the womb, the case is lost for the pro-abortionists. A singular right will trigger all the laws and rights protecting human life in our legal system and our constitution.

That is what is going to ultimately overturn Roe V. Wade, not prosecuting doctors and women who have abortions.

Both pro-abortion and pro-life people believe that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body (though only fringe pro-abortionists believe this right to be utterly unfettered). The disagreement is whether or not the woman has the right to do what she wants with the other body that is in her womb.


re: #196 Lidane

If you're talking in terms of random encounters with strangers, then an argument could be made about that. If, however, you're talking about sex within the confines of a relationship -- ANY relationship, married or otherwise -- then that's total bullshit.

No its not bullshit. “Bullshit” is acting in a certain way but pretending one isn’t. Hedonism is a school of ethics which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. If a person is having sex only for the good of pleasure then they are sexual hedonist. It doesn’t matter if they are in a committed relationship or not.

re: #197 hokiepride

Big government social "conservatism" is not conservatism at all. It is merely authoritarianism disguised as conservatism. Socon tyrants should be encouraged to form their own party and leave the GOP. The GOP should pursue pragmatic fiscal and national security conservatism and tell the socon mullahs to GTH

Agreed. Though it must be noted and stressed that not all social conservatives are authoritarian theocrats (never underestimate the dangers of mixing politics and religion...it ends up bad every time it’s tried). And you know what else??? “Conservatism” is really just 18th century liberalism. This country was not founded by a bunch of people who thought that England was too liberal.

200 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 7:36:28pm

re: #199 Liet_Kynes

No its not bullshit. “Bullshit” is acting in a certain way but pretending one isn’t. Hedonism is a school of ethics which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. If a person is having sex only for the good of pleasure then they are sexual hedonist. It doesn’t matter if they are in a committed relationship or not.

I'm well aware what the definition of hedonism is. However, I disagree that sex for the pure joy of it while in a relationship qualifies as hedonism. That's far too literal and ridiculous of an assertion.

Sex doesn't have to be "sacred" or assigned some deep, profound meaning all the time. Sometimes, just having it for its own sake with someone you love is enough.

201 QueenEsther  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 7:55:01pm

#167, #168, #170, #171

your snarkfest is ill-informed and rude. I'll reiterate -- the thread links to a UPI article that says nothing about an "invasive" or "internal" ultrasound - a different procedure than a typical external prenatal ultrasound. But the headline on this thread says otherwise. If the actual law does imply an internal procedure - I nor any of you would have known it based on this thread and the link therein.

I wasn't weighing in on the merit or lack thereof of the law or its veto.

Mommydoc - I defer to you on anything medical, and had you in mind when I posted. Wow, how times have changed!

202 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 8:06:13pm

re: #200 Lidane

I'm well aware what the definition of hedonism is. However, I disagree that sex for the pure joy of it while in a relationship qualifies as hedonism. That's far too literal and ridiculous of an assertion.

Sex doesn't have to be "sacred" or assigned some deep, profound meaning all the time. Sometimes, just having it for its own sake with someone you love is enough.

*seeking to understand your view*

How would you categorize it then? It matches the definition of hedonism, but if that is too ridiculous, when then would you prefer? Which philosophical system does it match?

uhhhhh ….materalism or utilitarianism would work but both systems degrade the person into an object whereas hedonism doesn’t necessarily include the dehumanizing of the person.

AHH but see in your answer you belie the fact that your position is not simply about having sex for pleasure for you say “with someone you love”. Sex is not being done “for its own sake” in your statement, but rather for “someone you love”. That right then and there elevates sexuality beyond the purely hedonistic because it is being done for the sake of deeper connectivity with the beloved.

Sex is for
1. connectivity with the beloved in charity
2. pleasure
3. being open to fecundity

From a religious point of view, its 1 not 3 that primarily makes the sexual act mysterious and sacred. 3 allows for the transformation of the sexual act. A sexual act, by its very nature is open to fecundity – one has to directly act against 3 – act against the nature of the act, to reject fecundity. That is why it is #1 which allows sex to become something sacred. Love is the fundamental key to sex rising above animals and becoming something that is a religiously sacred.

203 Lidane  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 8:12:55pm

re: #202 Liet_Kynes

*seeking to understand your view*

From a religious point of view

This is your mistake. I don't have a religious view. Not anymore. I was raised Catholic, but walked away from it, and from all organized religion, back when I was 18. I'm now 37, and haven't set foot in a church apart from weddings, funerals, or the occasional Mass when I visit my mother in almost twenty years.

I don't need to ascribe sex to a philosophical or religious system in order to justify it. I live with my boyfriend, and we have an active sex life. We both use birth control to prevent pregnancy, since both of us have agreed that we don't want children. I don't need to bring a deity into it, or try to decide if it's utilitarian, Kantian, material, or whatever. It just is what it is.

204 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 8:51:33pm

re: #203 Lidane

This is your mistake. I don't have a religious view. Not anymore. I was raised Catholic, but walked away from it, and from all organized religion, back when I was 18. I'm now 37, and haven't set foot in a church apart from weddings, funerals, or the occasional Mass when I visit my mother in almost twenty years.

I don't need to ascribe sex to a philosophical or religious system in order to justify it. I live with my boyfriend, and we have an active sex life. We both use birth control to prevent pregnancy, since both of us have agreed that we don't want children. I don't need to bring a deity into it, or try to decide if it's utilitarian, Kantian, material, or whatever. It just is what it is.


I was only explaining the religious view so you would not find your areligious view to be totally dissimilar. Most animosity between peoples arises from lack of clear definitions and assumptions about what people believe. There are nut ball conservatives just as there are nut ball liberals. There are nut ball Christians just as there are nut ball atheists. If people can agree on the definitions and why people believe the way they do (without assuming things), the nutballs can be weeded out and the atheists and Christians can have respect for each other and dine together even while debating each other spiritedly.

I think though what I am going to take away from what you wrote is that you would prefer not to be pigeonholed into a belief system and the only justification you need for what it is that you do or not do is the justification that you give yourself.

I’ll leave it at that.

205 swamprat  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:09:15pm

re: #175 Liet_Kynes

"Very few people at LGF are against mandated governmental medical procedures."

You are incorrect. In fact there was a post today against government mandated procedures. Please post any sort of link or context to support this unsubstantiated claim.

"The unified LGF view on the need for mandated vaccinations is prove of that."

LGF does not support mandated vaccinations.LGF thinks that people should be intelligent enough to know that the benefits far outweigh any risks. Some would deny that there are any risks at all, but that is a different topic and your claim that LGF supports MANDATED vaccinations is bogus.... Please supply a source or link.


"It is unfair to suggest that conservatives here who are looking into mandated governmental procedures as a means to eliminate abortion as somehow violating their conservative principles."

No. Mandated surgical procedures to guilt-trip people out of legally allowed actions is not something I would approve of, and I detest abortion, but it is more of a sorrow than an outrage.

"Being an American conservative means favoring a government that promotes the public good in a limited manner by standing in the way of those that would harm the public good while enabling people to achieve life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Conservatives would strongly object to the government being the provider of happiness and of the good (and rightly or wrongly a government that would do that would be viewed as “socalist”)."

That last is ok.

Carradine, is that you? How ya been, guy?

206 webevintage  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:30:45pm

re: #188 mommydoc

The newer probes are much narrower: the transducer tip is generally 3-4 cm in diameter on a 1 cm stalk.

Glad to hear they no longer resemble a sex toy...

207 Liet_Kynes  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 9:59:15pm

re: #205 swamprat

"The unified LGF view on the need for mandated vaccinations is prove of that."

LGF does not support mandated vaccinations.LGF thinks that people should be intelligent enough to know that the benefits far outweigh any risks. Some would deny that there are any risks at all, but that is a different topic and your claim that LGF supports MANDATED vaccinations is bogus... Please supply a source or link.


"It is unfair to suggest that conservatives here who are looking into mandated governmental procedures as a means to eliminate abortion as somehow violating their conservative principles."

No. Mandated surgical procedures to guilt-trip people out of legally allowed actions is not something I would approve of, and I detest abortion, but it is more of a sorrow than an outrage.

"Being an American conservative means favoring a government that promotes the public good in a limited manner by standing in the way of those that would harm the public good while enabling people to achieve life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. Conservatives would strongly object to the government being the provider of happiness and of the good (and rightly or wrongly a government that would do that would be viewed as “socalist”)."

That last is ok.

Carradine, is that you? How ya been, guy?

1. The various articles by Charles that decry the “bad craziness is on the rise in America, here’s an LA Times report on the increasing number of California parents who refuse to let their children be vaccinated” [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...] I think it is fully fair to say that LGF along with the CDC believes in mandatory vaccinations for specific diseases. If I am wrong and Charles supports optional only vaccinations, then I appologize. Having read here for a long long time I believe the comments at LGF to be generally supportive of mandatory vaccinations. such as the ones on this list [Link: immigration.about.com...]

2. This isn’t a surgical procedure. No cutting, no surgery. I have noted that I do not approve of the possibility of a forced invasive vaginal ultra-sound, and thus approve of the veto of the bill on those grounds. Problem is that the pro-abortionists are saying “Its ok because its not a human”. How do anti-abortionists re-humanize a baby? It is a difficult problem because there are a lot of hoops to jump through to maintain the dignity of the mother while seeking to re-establish the dignity of the child. The anti-abortionists will win the argument if the child in the womb is re-humanized. They will win the public opinion and the already in place “human rights” laws will kick in and will void Roe v. Wade once challenged before SCOTUS. That is the plan at least.

3. Thanks.

4. Not Carradine.

208 cmb53208  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 10:03:54pm

Aside from the fact that Oklahoma lawmakers want to turn it into an authoritarian state (to the extent it isn't already), there's some scary things we have to consider:

1) A good percentage of Okies obviously support nonsense like this, and have no problem becoming a Pentecostal Saudi Arabia. Yes these laws would have been struck down in court, but the scary fact is these were proposed with a straight face.

2) The goofs who proposed these laws will no doubt run again on a platform of "smaller government," and their constituents will buy this doublespeak.

3) We have come to a point in this nation where we may have to not just support some states seceeding, but actually expel them. Perhaps Oklahoma should be the first on the chopping block.

209 Pacificlady  Sat, Apr 24, 2010 11:55:58pm

Government should stay away from my uterus.

210 Liet_Kynes  Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:22:42am

re: #208 cmb53208

I don't know about that. If you look at the religious breakdown of OK it has a pretty even spread for a Southern State and the non-Christian element is also pretty high.

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

With the religious breakdown as it is, it is hard to argue that any social legislation that would come out of OK be something that would be "fringe" morality. You have to have a coalition to get moral legislation passed through. It is at least in the ball park of main stream views. As a reminder the legislation in question was vetoed. That means that the OK political mainstream is support for re-humanizing the child in the womb, but not doing it in the manner proposed.

With 4% Pentacostal it is not in danger of becoming a Pentecostal Saudia Arabia.

211 Obdicut  Sun, Apr 25, 2010 2:39:30pm

re: #207 Liet_Kynes

Anti-abortionists have no trouble re-humanizing babies. It's zygotes that are the challenge.

And stop being so obsessed about other people's sex lives. It's not healthy.

212 st. louisville cards  Mon, Apr 26, 2010 12:27:24pm

re: #84 Charles

Calling someone "anti-choice" is a very loaded term. You can call people "anti-choice" all you want but it takes away from your credibility.

Ultimately I don't think the question of when life begins (and therefore when one's rights begin) can ever be answered definitively. Calling people who see life as beginning at conception "anti-choice" is ignorant, just the same as when pro-lifers call people "pro-death" or "anti-life". Instead of judging people's motivations, as you did, stick to the facts of the situation/bill being discussed.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Ranked-Choice Voting Has Challenged the Status Quo. Its Popularity Will Be Tested in November. JUNEAU — Alaska’s new election system — with open primaries and ranked voting — has been a model for those in other states who are frustrated by political polarization and a sense that voters lack real choice at the ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 275 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1