 |
They do . I dispute that the availability of contraception is a right. But even if it were.. . The availability was not denied to her before Sebellius mandated that it be provided for "free". I certainly wouldn't expect it to be covered by the church if I or she worked for them.
This is just an absurd intollerable abuse of power by the President.
So women are slaves to men and reproduction?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
hmmmm 1st the fetus is a mass of disposable tissue .now reproduction =slavery.. I guess we can call that the banner statement of the progressive women's rights movement.
Women are women, do you deny their biological right to reproduce?Women have sold themselves into that slavery you see to enjoy other benefits, they go willingly excepting in situations of rape. And even seek the situation more than menQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ah, yes, this is the big question.
This directly relates to Locke's doctrine of rights that men exercised in a 'state of nature' before organised society existed to grant men these rights. In other words, 'natural rights'. Some people might argue that it is hard to see how these rights existed prior to there being an organized society to grant such rights.
Some people might also argue that the way 'natural rights' is being used is not actuallty descriptive, but is in fact prescriptive. In other words, it is a claim that men OUGHT to have these rights.
Tut
Women give sex to get love; men give love to get sex. N'est-ce pas?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Quite a jaded view. I professed the full devotion of my love before marriage and before sex. Perhaps mine is the minority view these days ; but sex is a further expression of that love... not some recreation .Quote:
Women give sex to get love; men give love to get sex. N'est-ce pas?
Recreational sex; now there's a thought. I wonder what the church thinks about that? Well we know don't we, it's called abstinance which coincidently is the same formula they have for limiting procreation
If I judge from the questions this site gets, my statements have merit. I'm hoping we get the worst-case (teen?) situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again,
All I got to say is, every time I wack off, it's STRICTLY for procreation.
excon
Hello again,
The vaginal probe is still in play. I haven't heard what my right wing friends have to say about it. You don't still deny they're contemplating doing it, are you??
excon
Are there other cases where a medical procedure is preformed without diagnostic testing... especially when the procedure is surgury ?
I say this is much more humane than Planned Parenthood's practice of giving their "patients" a miscarriage pill to take at home so they can miscarriage that bloody "tissue mass" on their bed without any medical supervision... in case something goes wrong. Yet I don't hear the pro-abortion crowd getting their undies in a knot over that barbarism.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm NOT pro-abortion. I AM pro-choice. Nonetheless, my undies DO get into a knot when ANY abortion happens. .
Happy? I suppose that ruins your viewpoint of a liberal who cheers every time a baby is aborted.
But, you're right in line with the wrong wingers. The purpose for sticking the vaginal probe all the way up inside a woman WITHOUT her consent, and WITHOUT a medical need is simply to PUNISH/RAPE women and to GUILT trip them in to conforming what old white men think they should do...
It's an INSULT to women. No, it's worse. It's an ASSAULT! It shows that the right wing thinks it knows BETTER than women.. Not only is it an insult, it's a LOSER in terms of the election... GO Rick Santorum.
excon
PS> (edited) Did I read correctly, that you think this is a pre-op DIAGNOSTIC procedure?? You don't really believe that... You're NOT that nutty.
An insult to women? Pish posh, there can be no greater insult than to the child that's been aborted out of convenience. Even if you don't like abortion you still view it wrong. I'm not picking on women, I''m defending children. Somebody has to.
And besides, Virginia Planned Parenthood already routinely performs an ultrasound before an abortion.
We can't have a "culture of life" now can we?Quote:
From a health perspective, these ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies. In clinics that don’t have access to ultrasound technology, sometimes pelvic exams can be used as a substitute. But those are arguably just as invasive as the transvaginal ultrasounds pro-choice activists are decrying.
In other words, the real reason pro-choicers oppose the law isn’t because of the “invasiveness” or “creepiness” of ultrasounds. It can’t be it. Virginia Planned Parenthood clinics already include them in its abortion procedures.
And let’s be honest. The main reason pro-lifers support the Virginia ultrasound bill isn’t out of medical necessity — not if these scans are already standard operating procedure at clinics.
This fight, like virtually all abortion law fights, is about how much of a role religion and morality should play in regulating these procedures. Pro-choice activists seem to have no problem with ultrasounds, as long as they’re done for medical reasons. But the fact that ultrasounds tend to already be part of abortions isn’t enough for pro-life activists. They want the main purpose for the scans to be promoting the “culture of life.” The Virginia law would mandate doctors to display and describe the ultrasound to the patient. And the image could end up dissuading many women from going ahead with the abortion.
While the pro-lifers have been pretty open about their motives, the pro-choicers – whose motto used to be “safe, legal and rare” – haven’t been. If they want to oppose the bill in order to keep morality out of abortion laws, that’s fine. But the rape comparisons are fundamentally dishonest and insult the intelligence of the public they’re trying to win over.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No problem... Just understand EXACTLY what we're talking about here... It's an INTRAVAGINAL probe stuck all the way up inside a women for the purpose GUILT TRIPPING a woman who is seeking her constitutional rights...
It's NOT up to the state to influence and/or PUNISH women seeking their rights UNDER the law.. If the state wants to CHANGE the law, change it they should - IF they can.
I looked at the law in Virginia... I couldn't find the words "vaginal probe" in the law... The SECRET hidden in the law, is the PARTICULAR ultrasound the law calls for can ONLY be accomplished by INTRAVAGINAL probing.
excon
Oh come on ex, you just lost your argument when I showed that these ultrasounds are standard operating procedure before the abortionist performs an abortion. The ONLY difference is the abortionist doesn't want the woman to see what she's about to abort is alive.
Correct and I stick by that .It is a common practice as Steve has detailed.Quote:
Did I read correctly, that you think this is a pre-op DIAGNOSTIC procedure??
Let's do a survey. I never had that done when I KEPT the kid. Is that standard procedure in normal, uneventful pregnancies?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No ;and there is no need to because a regular delivery is not surgery .
Edit.. what I want to know is why PP is not "raping " (Ex's words ) the women when they perform the procedure prior to an abortion ?
I didn't have it done with a normal delivery that turned into a c-section.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You know this is routine as part of an abortion procedure?Quote:
edit.. what I want to know is why PP is not "raping " (Ex's words ) the women when they perform the procedure prior to an abortion ?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:06 PM. |