Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
112 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: So "Obamacare" is gov't coercion but vaginal probes aren't? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So a guard in a prison who is doing a cavity check is a rapist?

You people don't even make a small amount of sense. I reaffirm my objection to this trivializing of the term rape.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Adelson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Well, I see the otherness of being other is otherwise contraindicated
badge
Who cares where it came from or whether it's correct or not? Certainly not me
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
So a guard in a prison who is doing a cavity check is a rapist?

You people don't even make a small amount of sense. I reaffirm my objection to this trivializing of the term rape.


Not just any rapist, but a legally sanctioned rapist. I'd like to see you go through a cavity search unwillingly, and come out of it feeling sanguine about the process. Well, technically I wouldn't like to see it. I wouldn't mind reading your reactions to the process, especially after it was repeated a few dozen times. For my sake, will you please go tell the TSA you're sorry that you tried to smuggle cocaine in your ass? Just walk up to the security line in any airport, and try to look truly contrite when you talk to them.

Also, when you speak to them about cavity checks, make sure to use the terms "full" and "penetration" so that they know exactly what's under discussion.
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that it's an exaggerating to call this rape, but I don't think the similarities should be utterly dismissed. If the government says that in order to do X I must do Y, it isn't forcing me to do Y. Similarly, if someone says, "If you want to come to this cool party you have to have sex with me" they aren't committing rape.

That said, the government is requiring something of women who want to undergo a legal procedure -- and that something is the insertion of a device into the woman's vagina. To you it make seem trivial since the procedure itself already requires a different penetration of the vagina, but I don't think it should be surprising that women generally have a different view of rape than most men do. Even a symbolic thing can be deeply offensive and threatening.

3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the example of how cartoonish this has become. Not that it was necessary considering the ample amount already present. It's nice to see my point proven so quickly and effectively, however.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
I don't see in the article where it says vaginal ultrasound is required. It says that discovery of the heartbeat is required, and that may necessitate vaginal ultrasound.

The Bill says that the heart beat and the shape and size of the fetus must be determined and a print made. In the first trimester, the fetus is usually too small for the the abdominal ultrasound to do that, so the vaginal one is used.

You have a child, did you go with your wife to the OB when she had an ultrasound during the first trimester? I bet it was the vaginal kind, it was for my two kids. The doctor only used the abdominal ultrasound for the second one much later in the pregnancy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Adelson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Well, I see the otherness of being other is otherwise contraindicated
badge
Who cares where it came from or whether it's correct or not? Certainly not me
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
Thanks for the example of how cartoonish this has become. Not that it was necessary considering the ample amount already present. It's nice to see my point proven so quickly and effectively, however.


And thank you, for allowing Chad to interpose a post, so that it looks as though your comment was directed at him. I find your willingness to declare your point proven as sufficient example of your worthlessness in this "debate." I don't even have to bother with the 1 cent tip shit, I'll just tell you I think you're the one proffering cartoons, here.
5 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jmilum wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
I don't see in the article where it says vaginal ultrasound is required. It says that discovery of the heartbeat is required, and that may necessitate vaginal ultrasound.

The Bill says that the heart beat and the shape and size of the fetus must be determined and a print made. In the first trimester, the fetus is usually too small for the the abdominal ultrasound to do that, so the vaginal one is used.

You have a child, did you go with your wife to the OB when she had an ultrasound during the first trimester? I bet it was the vaginal kind, it was for my two kids. The doctor only used the abdominal ultrasound for the second one much later in the pregnancy.


Actually, my ex-wife only had a transvaginal ultrasound with the third child due to the inability to find him at all abdominally causing the OBGYN to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy and schedule a D&C before I insisted upon more evidence that such a proceedure was necessary. The other two were found abdominally without issue even early in pregnancy.

Not that my experience is universal, but the claim that all or even most of these requirements cannot be done without any vaginal intrusion is suspect and uncited.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Adelson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Well, I see the otherness of being other is otherwise contraindicated
badge
Who cares where it came from or whether it's correct or not? Certainly not me
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
If the government says that in order to do X I must do Y, it isn't forcing me to do Y.


Well that's an interesting observation, here. If a woman wants to have an abortion and must therefore have a vaginal probe, then the government isn't FORCING vaginal probes on women, only the ones who want to have an abortion. Really comforting.

If a woman wants a job as a prison guard and therefore has to, by government employment regulations, perform full cavity searches of other women, the government isn't FORCING her to perform full cavity searches of all other women, only the women most likely to deserve full cavity searches. Similarly comforting.

Right, the government's not willing to rape anybody, indirectly or otherwise. The government is incapable of being a person. Now, if the prison is run by a corporation....
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
I agree that it's an exaggerating to call this rape, but I don't think the similarities should be utterly dismissed. If the government says that in order to do X I must do Y, it isn't forcing me to do Y. Similarly, if someone says, "If you want to come to this cool party you have to have sex with me" they aren't committing rape.

That said, the government is requiring something of women who want to undergo a legal procedure -- and that something is the insertion of a device into the woman's vagina. To you it make seem trivial since the procedure itself already requires a different penetration of the vagina, but I don't think it should be surprising that women generally have a different view of rape than most men do. Even a symbolic thing can be deeply offensive and threatening.



This conversation is spinning wildly out of control.

This is so not RAPE. I agree with Chad and Rich on that.

Even if it wasn't fully consensual... aka if a parent insisted on a child having a procedure (Like a Pap smear) the child didn't want, it wouldn't be the same as having her raped.

Plus it isn't non-consensual if she wants an abortion.


There are other medical procedures that have mandatory penetration even if you can't really justify it, attached.

For example I have never been allowed to get birth control pill prescriptions without an annual exam and Pap smear. Even when I was a virgin and wanted them for cramp control not birth control I HAD to undergo an exam with a speculum and they carefully maneuvered a long Q-tip though the Hyman gap to get a pap smear. Not a fun experience people. And the connection between Pap Smear and birth control pills is tenuous. Using prescription birth control access to force women to do what is "good for them" in the general medical professions view is a reach at best. There are real risks to birth control pills but stroke and blood clots are much higher on the list than cancer acceleration even in older clients.

The odds that a teen or 20 something has cervical cancer and therefore needs to be checked before giving them hormones that might accelerate the growth of said cancer are so slim... well... again it is a stretch to leverage PENETRATING exams on that basis. But they do and nobody yells that Planned Parenthood hates women over it.

And it certainly isn't RAPE. I wanted birth control pills. I got the full exam. And I owned my decision rather than griped about it.




4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
I don't see in the article where it says vaginal ultrasound is required. It says that discovery of the heartbeat is required, and that may necessitate vaginal ultrasound.

The idea that a vaginal ultrasound requirement before abortion is the same as "rape" is ridiculous. Exactly how do you think the abortion is performed? Last I checked, they inserted medical devices, through the vagina, to abort the fetus. Adding another transvaginal medical device to the list isn't rape. That conflation is treason to those that have suffered the pain and indignity of rape, and I'd expect the lot of you to be far more sensitive to that fact.

Maybe we shouldn't jump the shark by comparing republicans to rapists when that language isn't specifically present as many misinterpret here.

I'm wholely against this type of medically unnecessary stipulation, but you only exacerbate the issue when you allow debate to get this cartoonish.

The key difference is whether putting the ddvice in the woman's vagina is consented to or not. Saying it's just another medical device is like saying to a woman, "Well, you're already letting your husband in there, why not me?"
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
As for the OP... I am torn.

I have heard women speak about how they were going to get an abortion but a sonogram with a heartbeat was what changed their minds. That was the factor that made them realize what was in them was really alive.

More importantly... I there are people who claim they were really damaged by having an abortion without giving it careful consideration... they rushed in and "got it over with" only to later deeply regret it and never get over that loss/decision.

My biggest gripe with abortion these days is that in push to keep it legal there has also been a huge push to desensitize people to the issue. Which I object too on several levels. But in re this issue, means that many girls (and I do mean girls) and women rush into it in a panic and don't realize what an emotional toll it can take until it is too late. I think most pre-abortion counseling isn't very good. And the people who suffer for that are all the girls/women who do get them and are unprepared for the emotional consequences which often follow.

I am not sure how to insist that this problem be addressed without it seeming like an imposition/violation to the women who are really sure about what they want and think/know they aren't going to have any regrets.

This law doesn't seem like the right answer. But I am not sure what the right one will be like either.
5 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
There's an organization here that my wife mentioned to me. I don't know about it for myself, and my wife says the following is just her impression from their fundraising advertising only:

They aim to reduce abortions by offering financial and other support (such as someone to look after children, do housework, etc.) to those who would not otherwise choose an abortion given such support.

Neither of us have supported them and we're just assuming for right now that no coercion is involved in any way. If so, then why are there no such programs in the US?


There are many such programs here in the US like that. I even occasionally support one. I gave money to them several years back to (ironically in re this thread) help them buy a sonogram machine.

They help with medical and prenatal care. And help find homes for the babies or help the person with what they need to keep the baby.

However these programs come under a great deal of fire and scorn and they are not well publicized outside of pro-life circles because they are so politically divisive. Thus many/most women don't know they exist.

Again the agenda to not only keep abortion legal, but also to make it feel morally like it is no big deal pushes things to an extreme which I think hurts everybody in the long run.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Adelson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Well, I see the otherness of being other is otherwise contraindicated
badge
Who cares where it came from or whether it's correct or not? Certainly not me
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:

I wanted birth control pills. I got the full exam. And I owned my decision rather than griped about it.


Lynette, by now you know (or should, based on all the games we play together) that I am quite fond of you, but merely because you owned your decision and chose not to gripe about it is insufficient grounds for me to grant you ultimate authority in this regard. The fact that you're a woman is insufficient grounds for me to grant you authority in this regard. I was raped well before the age of consent (that's what makes it rape, in my case--because I couldn't legally consent, even if I'd understood what it was that I was or wasn't consenting to) and the number of men walking around with their heads up their asses (whoops, insensitive to anal rape victims) on this planet going out of their way bending over to be sensitive to women's issues need to get a fucking clue that men and boys and young girls and defenseless wildlife get raped, and even if women are the majority of the class, they don't get a unilateral say in what constitutes rape.

I strongly believe they (women) should get the say on what the consequences of their own rapes should be: They should not be interfered with even slightly by state-required vaginal probing if they're going to get a legally sanctioned abortion after being impregnated by a rapist, and they should not be interfered with, by extension, for any other kind of abortion they may legally elect to have, if only because it's just going to inevitably lead to some number of unverifiable rape claims in order for some to get more expedient, less judgmental, abortions.

Just because you chose not to gripe about a physical exam that you deemed acceptable in order to go get some legally sanctioned birth control doesn't mean that a rape victim is griping (as just one example) if she doesn't want to, or can't, handle the psychological harassment that some number of zealots in this country are always too happy to provide, and may somehow manage to institutionalize via transparent ploys like the one under discussion.
11 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
MisterCranky wrote:
Meerkat wrote:

I wanted birth control pills. I got the full exam. And I owned my decision rather than griped about it.


Lynette, by now you know (or should, based on all the games we play together) that I am quite fond of you, but merely because you owned your decision and chose not to gripe about it is insufficient grounds for me to grant you ultimate authority in this regard. The fact that you're a woman is insufficient grounds for me to grant you authority in this regard. I was raped well before the age of consent (that's what makes it rape, in my case--because I couldn't legally consent, even if I'd understood what it was that I was or wasn't consenting to) and the number of men walking around with their heads up their asses (whoops, insensitive to anal rape victims) on this planet going out of their way bending over to be sensitive to women's issues need to get a fucking clue that men and boys and young girls and defenseless wildlife get raped, and even if women are the majority of the class, they don't get a unilateral say in what constitutes rape.

I strongly believe they (women) should get the say on what the consequences of their own rapes should be: They should not be interfered with even slightly by state-required vaginal probing if they're going to get a legally sanctioned abortion after being impregnated by a rapist, and they should not be interfered with, by extension, for any other kind of abortion they may legally elect to have, if only because it's just going to inevitably lead to some number of unverifiable rape claims in order for some to get more expedient, less judgmental, abortions.

Just because you chose not to whine about a physical exam that you deemed acceptable in order to go get some legally sanctioned birth control doesn't mean that a rape victim is whining (as just one example) if she doesn't want to, or can't, handle the psychological harassment that some number of zealots in this country are always too happy to provide, and may somehow manage to institutionalize via transparent ploys like the one under discussion.


Love and respect you too Josh. And I don't think I even want ultimate authority to speak for others.

However I do care about word usage and meaning.

So when I was ten I got bit by a dog in the face and the Dr said I had to have stitches or it would be a visible scar. I was terrified of needles and refused. Long story short my mother FORCED me to get them. I was angry at her for years about it. As an adult I still think she could have done better than telling me she was going to allow them to strap me down if I didn't willingly submit. But as an adult I also know I needed the stitches and I was being unreasonable. This was a forced medical procedure that involved penetrating my body with needles... it might be a violation of some kind, but it obviously wasn't rape. We would need to use a different set of words to discuss this clearly because rape just doesn't fit.

So just to be clear if a mother insists her daughter go on the pill at 15 (let us assume for a moment because she thinks the girl has or is about to become sexually active) and therefore via parental pressure insists the girl get a pap smear to achieve that goal of getting her on birth control, you would consider that rape, just because her vagina was involved?

In my mind rape has some very specific connotations and that just doesn't fit them.

I am not saying I approve of the proposed law. I am not even saying one couldn't use the word "violation" which has a broader context. But rape? I just don't see it. And worse I think it dilutes the power of the word rape when it is applied to situations that may be violating but do not fit the definition of forced sexual context contact.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
I don't see in the article where it says vaginal ultrasound is required. It says that discovery of the heartbeat is required, and that may necessitate vaginal ultrasound.

The idea that a vaginal ultrasound requirement before abortion is the same as "rape" is ridiculous. Exactly how do you think the abortion is performed? Last I checked, they inserted medical devices, through the vagina, to abort the fetus. Adding another transvaginal medical device to the list isn't rape. That conflation is treason to those that have suffered the pain and indignity of rape, and I'd expect the lot of you to be far more sensitive to that fact.

Maybe we shouldn't jump the shark by comparing republicans to rapists when that language isn't specifically present as many misinterpret here.

I'm wholely against this type of medically unnecessary stipulation, but you only exacerbate the issue when you allow debate to get this cartoonish.

The key difference is whether putting the ddvice in the woman's vagina is consented to or not. Saying it's just another medical device is like saying to a woman, "Well, you're already letting your husband in there, why not me?"


I never said it isn't invasive, offensive, and unnecessary. I said it isn't rape. Which it isn't.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Adelson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Well, I see the otherness of being other is otherwise contraindicated
badge
Who cares where it came from or whether it's correct or not? Certainly not me
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:

I am not saying I approve of the proposed law. I am not even saying one couldn't use the word "violation" which has a broader context. But rape? I just don't see it. And worse I think it dilutes the power of the word rape when it is applied to situations that may be violating but do not fit the definition of forced sexual context contact.


Well, I recognize that you are not necessarily in support of the measure, and I certainly sympathize with you as regards getting bitten on the face (or anywhere else), but the doctor wasn't going to sew inside your vagina, or inside your alimentary canal, or any of the other semi-traditional locations of sexual context penetration, so I'm going to "disallow" your anecdote on the grounds of complete irrelevance. My anecdote, the details of which I see no earthly reason to discuss, I am "allowing" because my bias doesn't alter the fact that unwanted and non-consensual sexual contact was involved.

Rape is, and always will be, an extreme form of humiliation, performed by one person upon another, not for sexual purposes, but for purposes of exerting control upon that person. What makes rape "RAPE" is not the intent--this should be easily inferred from the number of rapists who are truly astonished when their victims call them to task. It is enough to say that a person was sufficiently insensitive to another person's unwillingness to engage in certain types of bodily contact, or even, as with my own experience, unable to reasonably form willingness, that we can label the person who instigates the contact as a rapist. In short, you don't get to say, "I'm not a rapist because I didn't mean to rape you, I thought it was consensual," and have the charges dismissed. You may be able to skate through the legal system with such a defense, but the person who was raped will be just as raped, no matter what the situation of the rapist.

It's my belief that having your vagina probed against your will for ANY reason (note that I can't be certain, since, sadly, I do not have one) equates to rape. I don't really care if it equates to rape in the eyes of the beholders, so I guess I shouldn't care about my own opinion here, but I do care about the opinion of the woman being probed. We can't all be forced to conform with some general standard of acceptance of circumstance: We are all individuals, and some number of us are going to feel raped when somebody sticks something into our genitals, our anuses, or really any orifice at all (that's right, a Wet Willie is potentially a small-scale rape!) that we vehemently oppose being put there.

As to your much more relevant and interesting hypothetical: If any parent manages, through such events as you've described, to instill in their daughter a feeling of intense humiliation and violation of the sanctity of their body? Yes, it's rape. Legally sanctioned rape. As a perpetual watcher of such amazing legal doctrine as L&O: SVU I'm wondering if the medical establishment of every state in this country would even perform a pap smear on a girl of that age against her express wishes. I think we can all agree they'd do one in the absence of any expressed wish against them, but I do wonder about the legality of your scenario. In any case, yes, the mother in your scenario has raped the daughter, via a medical professional. What is the mother doing in this case other than humiliate her daughter by asserting her authority over her in this fashion? She might as well just grab wire hangers and march around the house pretending to be Mommy Dearest.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
MisterCranky wrote:
Chad_Ellis wrote:
If the government says that in order to do X I must do Y, it isn't forcing me to do Y.


Well that's an interesting observation, here. If a woman wants to have an abortion and must therefore have a vaginal probe, then the government isn't FORCING vaginal probes on women, only the ones who want to have an abortion. Really comforting.


My point is that making X a condition for Y is meaningfully different than just forcing X. That doesn't make it OK to force X and I think it's pretty clear that I'm not OK with this bill.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
It looks like the bill has been amended to specify that a "jelly on the belly" ultrasound will be sufficient. I still dislike the bill, but it's good that they changed this at least.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Adelson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Well, I see the otherness of being other is otherwise contraindicated
badge
Who cares where it came from or whether it's correct or not? Certainly not me
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:

My point is that making X a condition for Y is meaningfully different than just forcing X. That doesn't make it OK to force X and I think it's pretty clear that I'm not OK with this bill.


I thoroughly understand and applaud your not being OK with the bill, and I just don't tell you enough how proud you occasionally make me to be a fellow human being, because I am not OK with it either.

The meaningful difference is not, for me, sufficiently practically different to matter.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel
Netherlands
Den haag
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
The idea that a vaginal ultrasound requirement before abortion is the same as "rape" is ridiculous.

It is just as ridiculous as calling abortion murder, so it fits right into this hyperbole filled abortiion discussion

[/q]Maybe we shouldn't jump the shark by comparing republicans to rapists when that language isn't specifically present as many misinterpret here.
[/q]
I whole heartedkly agree, and while we are at it, let's stop comparing pro-abortionists to murderers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
MisterCranky wrote:
The meaningful difference is not, for me, sufficiently practically different to matter.


Fair enough. As I said earlier, women often have a very different sense of rape than most men. Your earlier posting reminds me that rape victims (male or female) also have a different perspective and one that seems clearly more valid than my own.

If you look at this and say, "That's rape" then I'm going to rethink my own position...at least considering it provisional.
1 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh Adelson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Well, I see the otherness of being other is otherwise contraindicated
badge
Who cares where it came from or whether it's correct or not? Certainly not me
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay, I'm just going to call things of this nature (I'll even include my own situation) provisional rape. I like the sound of it, and it allows for degrees of rape, in the same sense that we have degrees of murder. For those who don't want to "trivialize" or dilute the meaning of "rape," this term should be quite useful as well, to categorize any number of things less obviously rapes than the act of sexually penetrating a person without their consent and while threatening their life and limb.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Brown
United States
North Adams
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:

More importantly... I there are people who claim they were really damaged by having an abortion without giving it careful consideration... they rushed in and "got it over with" only to later deeply regret it and never get over that loss/decision.


I have heard many people claim their lives were really damaged by having children without giving it careful consideration... they rushed in and "did what was expected" only to later deeply regret it and never recover from that mistake/decision. Rather than have a woman ruin her life for the next two decades with a child she doesn't want taking all her time, money, and sanity, shouldn't the government have mandatory counseling about the realities of parenthood before women are allowed to reproduce? After all, we want regulations to make sure women avoid decisions they'll regret later, right?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
Osirus wrote:
Meerkat wrote:

More importantly... I there are people who claim they were really damaged by having an abortion without giving it careful consideration... they rushed in and "got it over with" only to later deeply regret it and never get over that loss/decision.


I have heard many people claim their lives were really damaged by having children without giving it careful consideration... they rushed in and "did what was expected" only to later deeply regret it and never recover from that mistake/decision. Rather than have a woman ruin her life for the next two decades with a child she doesn't want taking all her time, money, and sanity, shouldn't the government have mandatory counseling about the realities of parenthood before women are allowed to reproduce? After all, we want regulations to make sure women avoid decisions they'll regret later, right?


Any GOOD sex education and health class should already be stressing the "costs" of child birth/rearing. I know mine did and that was over 20 years ago.

I didn't get one of those cool "fake babies" that really cry and crap to care for that some schools use now. But the realities of child care were talked about up to and including how much you would need to save for their college funds.

The whole point being an attempt to make kids consider the long term costs of parenting. So they don't do things like get knocked up and regret it later.

Just like STD's - making the real life impact of pregnancy as clear as can be BEFORE getting pregnant is a really good idea.

As a tax payer I would be thrilled for the government to fund free Parenting classes and a Things to think about before having children classes and/or sex ed for adults in case you forgot or missed it in High School that were open to anybody and everybody. Even non-citizens.

I would also not only be on board I would cheer a program that required people who are on government assistance (long term not something like unemployment) to care for upcoming or current kids to HAVE to take these classes or risk losing benefits.

As an aside I would love for the government to fund free "fiscal responsibility" classes were people could go to learn the basics of budgeting, how to do financial planning, how to plan for retirement, how to understand/do basic tax form, how to calculate/understand basic credit card and loan costs in real $$, not just monthly min payments. etc.

I am all for counseling and classes on any needed life skills to be available to everybody. I think society benefits would far outweigh costs.

4 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter Acerbic Harridan
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:


There are other medical procedures that have mandatory penetration even if you can't really justify it, attached.

For example I have never been allowed to get birth control pill prescriptions without an annual exam and Pap smear. Even when I was a virgin and wanted them for cramp control not birth control I HAD to undergo an exam with a speculum and they carefully maneuvered a long Q-tip though the Hyman gap to get a pap smear. Not a fun experience people. And the connection between Pap Smear and birth control pills is tenuous. Using prescription birth control access to force women to do what is "good for them" in the general medical professions view is a reach at best. There are real risks to birth control pills but stroke and blood clots are much higher on the list than cancer acceleration even in older clients.

The odds that a teen or 20 something has cervical cancer and therefore needs to be checked before giving them hormones that might accelerate the growth of said cancer are so slim... well... again it is a stretch to leverage PENETRATING exams on that basis. But they do and nobody yells that Planned Parenthood hates women over it.

And it certainly isn't RAPE. I wanted birth control pills. I got the full exam. And I owned my decision rather than griped about it.



I've been working all day and missed most of this discussion. And it all seems to be moot since the governor took out the trans-vaginal examination.

In any case, I know I never characterized the exam as rape, although I think a rape victim would find it an extreme violation. Good friends of mine found exams after the rape very difficult. Characterizing these concerns as "griping" seems kind of harsh.

Also, I think your analogy to getting a pelvic exam to get birth control pills is very off-base. While your physician may have required one, it's optional in many cases (e.g., where federal funding like Medicaid isn't implicated, women's medical history is clear, the personal judgment of the physician indicates otherwise). Also many women have pelvic exams for the simple reason that, as painful as they can sometimes be, they are a smart idea.

Beyond that, pelvic exams to get birth control are still voluntary. There are alternative forms of birth control that don't require pelvic exams. The last time I looked, there's no alternative procedure to abortion other than carrying the child to term.

And there is an alternative to a trans-vaginal ultrasound. It's called a regular ultrasound. There's no excuse for this kind of law.




2 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.