JCC Virginia GOP introduces bill to instrumentally RAPE all women who want an abortion (seriously)

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Feb 17, 2012.

  1. Mustafar_66 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2005
    star 5
    And what about the interests of the woman? See this is where the logic of that particular argument falls down because the moment you take more interest in the prospects of a potential human life at the expense of an actual one, you lose all legitimacy in my eyes.

    (Collective you btw, not you individually).
  2. TahiriVeilaSolo69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2002
    star 5
    You have completely ignored the women in here who have had this procedure themselves, including myself, who have stated that the procedure is INVASIVE AND PAINFUL. The procedure takes forever and they constantly have to jam it up there to get the "best possible picture". Not to mention how uncomfortable it is to have someone who you aren't intimate with being in your nether regions poking around for 30 minutes to do this.
  3. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    I'm sort of cheating since I just read this case a few weeks ago (Dani is probably loling at me), but the notion is that unlike other civil rights, the interests of the woman's privacy is matched by the state's interests in human life. Unlike most other restraints in rights, where the person's constitutional right requires a high standard for the state to overcome, there are two countervailing constitutional rights. So the idea is that the state can do whatever measures it wants to persuade women not to undergo abortions so long as it doesn't amount to an "undue burden" (whatever the fudge that is) on their freedom of choice. So the logic is that forcing a woman to see an ultrasound, while totally manipulative, is not really a burden that isn't warranted because she can still have an abortion afterwards.

    I'm not convinced by that reasoning myself, but it's sort of a bow to the idea that both sides have strong interests in this issue. The older, Roe v. Wade, schema was that the state's interest in human life only started at viability so that's the only place where bans could come in, but that's replaced by this weird system that lets states do all sorts of manipulative things instead.
  4. Mustafar_66 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2005
    star 5
    Surely forcing a woman to undergo an invasive procedure is an undue burden?

    American discussions on abortion are so weird. Sure, in Britain we have abortion debates, but they're generally focused on when abortions should be allowed up to (16/20/24 weeks), not whether they should be allowed at all.
  5. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Well, I would say that it's a violation of informed consent but sure, having to go through that might also substantially put people off from getting an abortion.
  6. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
  7. PrincessKenobi New Films Manager of DOOM

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 7
    It's a woman's body and she should be able to do what she wants to do with it. While I personally am pro-life with my body does not mean someone else isn't pro-choice with theirs. They should not be violated because they made that choice. This kind of rhetoric will only cause back-ally abortions to rise and more health issues for those women.

    While I do not like abortions, they are a healthier option for women then having someone use a hanger to take care of it. Hopefully though no one would resort to that in this day and age and just go across the state line.

  8. Mustafar_66 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2005
    star 5
    I think it's important to remember that most women don't get an abortion on a whim. Yes there are a minority of women who use it as a form of contraception, but most women who go for an abortion are not like that as far as I can tell. To me, it's utterly reprehensible that anyone should try and deter a woman from getting one after they've made their decision.
  9. ApolloSmileGirl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 18, 2004
    star 8
    WTF are men, especially, to make that decision?

    You have any idea how traumatizing it is, for a woman be raped? On top of that having to have a present left behind? You realize health can be an issue, and that can usually be concluded before a procedure like this is needed.

    I am not for using abortions for birth control, but there are plenty of women that have to have one because of physical, or emotional trauma.

    States should have no right to enforce something like this, and let's be honest, it's all to get freaking votes by the people enforcing it.
  10. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    Again, it depends upon how one defines pregnancy - and the way it is currently defined is a poor definition.
  11. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    I wouldn't think it would matter to the Church how pregnancy is defined but how "life" is defined-- that is, pregnancy does not begin at conception but life does.
  12. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    It makes sense to me that if there is a distinct human organism within a woman's reproductive tract, she is pregnant - even if it is not attached.

    But no, you're correct in that the mere existence of a human person warrants not killing it or preventing its only means of life (implantation and continued {or commencing} pregnancy).
  13. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    So is the Catholic Church opposed to all birth control or only birth control that prevents an already-fertilized zygote from implanting?

    I've always found a position against birth control a bit counterproductive in combination with opposition to abortion, as effective use of birth control prevents abortion.
  14. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    It is very common for fertilized eggs to not implant themselves on the wall of the womb. That can be one of the reasons why some women have trouble becoming pregnant.


    All birth control, condoms, any form of contraception. Every act of sexuality has to be "open to life," under Catholic theology. Gay sex, masturbation, non-vaginal sex between a straight and married couple, use of contraception by a straight and married couple... they're all sins for the same reason. Not being "open to life." If the Catholic Church ever decided that sexual activity doesn't have to always be "open to life," then all of the above would no longer be considered sins.

    They also tend to treat anti-implantation birth control as abortion.

    And yeah, the Catholic Church believes abstinence and celibacy is the only God-ordained solution to all this.
  15. TahiriVeilaSolo69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2002
    star 5
    In the Catholic Church (ie: the Church I was raised in) it was taught that sex was strictly for procreation and you shouldn't be doing anything to prevent any more little Catholics from being born.
  16. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    True. The uterus itself can be hostile to implantation.

    As a side note I also find the Catholic Church's opposition to IVF odd. But that's another thread.
  17. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
    The Catholic Church considers prevention of implantation tantamount to murder, but prevention of fertilization is not the same as murder.

    Both are considered grave moral evils, however.
  18. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    *biting my tongue* Yeah, there's a reason I'm Lutheran.
  19. TahiriVeilaSolo69 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2002
    star 5
    There's a reason why I have a distanced myself from the Church :p
  20. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    lol
  21. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    No, I mean the prospect of getting physically violated would constitute an undue burden such that this Virgnia law should be considered unconstitutional (imo). I wasn't defending it as a valid form of "persuasion" allowed under current law.

    fwiw the Roman Empire had no problem with abortion. Jupiter Best and Greatest certainly knew best.
  22. AaylaSecurOWNED Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 6
    Which is especially lolarious since 80-90% of zygotes never even implant. Under the Church's definition of humanity, 90% of humanity was never more than a few cells.
  23. wannasee Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 24, 2007
    star 4
    I didn't say that.

    I could make the argument that my "ethical mandate" does fit in with beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy. That is, only if you are using those words in the everyday understanding of those words. If you are using some technical definition that you learned in medical school, then you will have to share that information, since not all of us went to medical school.

    Withholding information is manipulation, not the other way around. "If she saw the truth, she might not go through with it. Let's hide it from her." How can anyone think that that is not manipulation?

    Anyway, I would like to hear other examples of cases where withholding information is seen as less manipulative than a full disclosure of the facts.
  24. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    She never advocated "withholding information." She of course, as a physician, has more knowledge about pregnancy than does the person getting pregnant. But there would still be an enormous knowledge gap even with an ultrasound. Are you trying to suggest that a mother is not "informed" unless she goes to four years of medical school, reads a 1400 page OBGYN textbook, and becomes licensed as an OBGYN herself? Or simply that her doctor teach her all this information in the space of a single visit, lest she be uninformed?

    There is a nigh inconceivable amount of information in the world. I'm not sure that even in a lifetime, and even on one small topic like this, a person could master all human knowledge. Once you accept that fact, the question is not about trying to tell everything or not. Instead, the standard for "informing" someone is defined by what sort of information they'd find helpful and relevant in making their decision.

    That besides, no one has advocated "hiding" information. That's not what the law is about. Plenty of women get these ultrasounds now. The question is whether we should legally mandate that every single women who gets an abortion in the state of Virginia has to have one, under force of law. It would seem to me to make more sense to let families and their doctors figure out what sort of information they want/need, and choose or decline the procedure on that basis, instead of forcing everyone to go through with something that may not even be helpful for them.
  25. PRENNTACULAR VIP

    Member Since:
    Dec 21, 2005
    star 6
    idk. Everything about this just sucks. Abortion is sad and shouldn't happen. But Making the women feel even MORE crappy about what they are doing is stupid too. Way worse, IMO.