The ultrasound bill in Virginia passed the House yesterday afternoon with a vote of 61–35. The bill now goes to Governor McDonnell who has been under intense pressure to veto it from feminists who — falsely — claimed that the bill mandated a transvaginal ultrasound. This, they argued, would amount to “state-sanctioned rape.” The bill was easily amended to clarify that only a “transabdominal ultrasound” was required.
Not to be deterred in their creative semantics, the feminists pivoted to new talking points. Delegate Charniele Herring from Alexandria (minority whip of the Virginia House of Delegates) declared during floor debate that mandating a transabdominal ultrasound “is tantamount to battery.”
Forcing people to undergo medical procedures against their will, I guess you can trample on the Constitutiuon as long as it is for a good cause.
But don't you dare try to frisk someone at the airport...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you think an abdominal sonogram is a "medical procedure", you must get pretty worked by the fact that a nurse will take your temperature and blood pressure whenever you go to the doctor's office, regardless of the reason for your visit. They haven't even been to medical school!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut that's consensual.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not consensual if you want the doctor to treat you. Once you're in the doctor's office, it's not really consensual.
Just like the ultrasound is consensual in the sense that nobody's making you walk in and have the abortion, and not consensual in the sense that if you're asking for the abortion, you have to have it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHeh. Nice job those feminists are doing representing actual rape victims and victims of domestic abuse. Just remember this sorry episode the next time you hear an abortionist talk about how we need to have abortion in case a woman is raped.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"next time you hear an abortionist talk about how we need to have abortion in case a woman is raped."
Well don't we?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt depends. Do you think rape is justification for the murder of an innocent? Just because the innocent is the unwitting byproduct of the rape? I don't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, we don't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo rape victims should be forced to bear their rapist's babies? Do you realize how unpopular that position is?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, rape victims should push the tragedy of the crime on the child that did not ask to be born? Were it only that that position was popular. And I'm glad a child's life now depends on whether a position is popular or not.
And it isn't just the "rapist's" baby. It is hers as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCorrection: THE CHILD is hers as well. A baby isn't a thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's a good thing for the rest of us that your opinion on this matter is heavily in the minority in this country.
My guess is that you, like me, are male, and are more than happy to demand that others go through something that you certainly will never have to. The funny thing is that you seem to believe it puts you on some sort of moral pedestal to do so. It doesn't. It just makes you sound like someone who has zero life experience with these issues, and a real jerk to boot - though you've never been ashamed to show that here at NRO.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTheFish! I wondered when my boyfriend would be coming around. I'm glad to sound like a jerk. I'm like the late Andrew Breitbart: If I'm not making enemies I'm not doing something right.
Women would never have to go through vasectomies, but I did get it. I can no longer have any children. I did it so my wife wouldn't have to get her tubes tied. Of course, I would never be able to get my tubes tied, so this was my way of taking it for the team. This is probably where you say, "Good riddance, that jerk can no longer have any kids," to which I will respond, "Too late! I have two beautiful children who are going to be much smarter than I."
It seems you are the one coming here passing moral judgment, calling people jerks and saying things without a shred of proof about what goes on in another person's life. So, I think that your last two sentences should be directed back at you.
But I do love you, TheFish. Let's converse more often!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I'm glad to sound like a jerk."
Good luck winning people over to your position with that attitude. You don't seem to realize that you are in the minority on this issue. If you can't convince others you are right, you will just go on drinking salty beer forever - while making a bunch of people dislike you. It's not a badge of honor, it's a mark of shame. Amazing to me that people don't realize this.
"Women would never have to go through vasectomies, but I did get it. "
So did I, it was an outpatient procedure, barely even hurt, big f'ing whoop. The important part is that you did so voluntarily! And that it improved your life! It's the exact opposite of what you are advocating for women who have been raped. I'm actually shocked to see you write this as if it was relevant to the conversation.
You didn't actually deny anything that I said, so it's difficult for me to see why you would put in the 'shred of proof' part. You have no experience with these matters and never will; you're happy to moralize for others when it doesn't affect you in the slightest. I just pray that you never have to watch your daughter go through what I've seen other women go through after they've been raped; I suspect that if you had even a hint of experience in this area, you'd think differently.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Good luck winning people over to your position with that attitude. You don't seem to realize that you are in the minority on this issue. If you can't convince others you are right, you will just go on drinking salty beer forever - while making a bunch of people dislike you. It's not a badge of honor, it's a mark of shame. Amazing to me that people don't realize this."
Says the person passing moral judgment. I've read other comments here and there are some who agree. I don't need to bother convincing you, which come to think of it, why are you coming here anyway if not to be convinced of another person's arguments?
"So did I, it was an outpatient procedure, barely even hurt, big f'ing whoop. The important part is that you did so voluntarily! And that it improved your life! It's the exact opposite of what you are advocating for women who have been raped. I'm actually shocked to see you write this as if it was relevant to the conversation."
I brought it up because I felt like it. I'm glad you got it done as well, although I think you're lying to bolster your position. However, as shown above, which you haven't addressed, the rape of a woman is being used as shield for the evil of abortion. It is not like you care for the woman being raped and that somehow if the woman simply aborted the baby as produced by a rapist will eliminate the psychological trauma of being raped. Tell me how that works.
And again, you are passing moral judgment. You simply assume things and that I do not know of what I speak. Ask questions, and I'll answer them. If my daughter were raped and impregnated, I would be there to help her through not only the traumatic experience of being raped, but also give the most support to NOT abort the baby. You can continue to want to take what you think is the difficult road, but spare me your Leftist foolishness, TheFish. There was nothing to dispute because you never raised anything of substance, other than you trying to personally attack me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour argument seems to have boiled down a 'I know you are, but what am I?' line. That's pretty boring.
I'm not making a moral judgement - I don't have to make one, as my preferred position is already law. I'm merely pointing out that being a total ass - and reveling in it, as you clearly stated you do - is the worst way to get others to change their minds about an issue. Your tactics are horrible and it's destructive to you and your cause to engage in them.
"However, as shown above, which you haven't addressed, the rape of a woman is being used as shield for the evil of abortion."
This is incorrect. See my response to Madisonian later in the thread - Abortion isn't justified b/c of Rape or anything else negative; it's self-justifying on it's own, simply because the mother chooses to do so before the point of viability. Up until then, the baby isn't a person, it's a part of her body, and she can choose to do whatever she wishes with it.
Good luck convincing anyone to change the law with your attitude. I'll just go on enjoying the fact that my opinions carried the day long ago, and that the opponents of my opinions are so dim-witted.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Your argument seems to have boiled down a 'I know you are, but what am I?' line. That's pretty boring."
But that's all your arguments have ever been, TheFish. You never put forward any cogent arguments, as attested to by this:
"Abortion isn't justified b/c of Rape or anything else negative; it's self-justifying on it's own, simply because the mother chooses to do so before the point of viability. Up until then, the baby isn't a person, it's a part of her body, and she can choose to do whatever she wishes with it."
That you think that this is logic and "correct" is complete stupidity. The reason you have such a position is because of this:
"I'm not making a moral judgement - I don't have to make one, as my preferred position is already law."
So, as long as your position is "law" not only is morally sound, it is correct. And yes, you are making moral judgments. I find your position, law and all, morally reprehensible. You find my position to be morally reprehensible because it challenges your worldview. For this, you again result to name calling and ad hominem. You say that I am using tactics that are horrible and destructive. And what tactic would that be, letting my opinion be known? Glad to know that that is now a horrible and destructive practice.
But hey! As long as the law validates your position, then we all know that that is the morally correct decision, right? I wonder what the world would have been like if all the States decided that the laws allowing slavery was morally correct and validated the slaveowners' opinion as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You find my position to be morally reprehensible because it challenges your worldview."
You misunderstand - I find it to be ignorant, illogical and ineffective.
"You say that I am using tactics that are horrible and destructive."
This is true - your stated desire to be an ass IS destructive to your own position. The fact you revel in it reveals your ignorance of this fact, which is sad but unsurprising.
I think we're pretty much done here. Have fun drinking your salty beer!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You misunderstand - I find it to be ignorant, illogical and ineffective."
In other words, "You find my position to be morally reprehensible because it challenges your worldview."
"This is true - your stated desire to be an ass IS destructive to your own position. The fact you revel in it reveals your ignorance of this fact, which is sad but unsurprising."
If I am an ass because I have a position that is morally reprehensible because it challenges your worldview then yes I am proud to be an ass. I don't need to make friends in the course of standing up for what is right, even if the law says something else. Telling the truth is coarse; spreading lies run smoothly off the lips. If people don't like my position and it makes me look an ass, then that is their problem. Which is to say, TheFish, as you point your accusatory finger at me, three are pointing back at you.
And I've been done with you for quite some time, but I do thoroughly enjoy punching figuratively in the face with a smile as I type. I guess this means you won't answer my question thoroughly below.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, you certainly are correct that I do have one finger pointed your way.
Who do you think smiles more - the guy who thinks he's winning some conversation on a message board, or the guy whose position is supported by both law and public opinion, and by all apparent evidence, will continue to win the day?
Right.
:)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse