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

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).

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.

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.

I think that's the idea.

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.

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.

Again, it depends upon how one defines pregnancy - and the way it is currently defined is a poor definition.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

*biting my tongue* Yeah, there's a reason I'm Lutheran.

There's a reason why I have a distanced myself from the Church

lol

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.

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.

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.

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.