Hysterical Abortion Advocates Equate Ultrasounds To Rape

The Virginia state legislature has introduced a bill requiring women get a sonogram before they get an abortion. It must be given by an MD at least two hours before the procedure — not one of the “nurses” employed by the abortion clinic — and the woman must be given the opportunity to see the ultrasound image and hear the heartbeat. She is not required to do either, but the option must be made available to her. Pro-abortion advocates immediately flew into attack mode, because heaven forbid anything be done to ensure women get the correct medical information before having an abortion! Hysterics over any attempt to curtail abortions are nothing new, and this time they’ve come up with a rather… interesting argument. Ultrasounds equal rape!

Over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick writes that most women will be forced into a transvaginal ultrasound, which of course, equals rape.

Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced.

The ultrasound = rape meme is spreading like wildfire around pro-abortion blogs, from RH Reality Check and Feministing, to Feministe and Pandagon. They’re all parroting the same absurd claim: that somehow, requiring a pre-abortion ultrasound equals rape.

Of course, the Virginia state law does not require a transvaginal ultrasound, and transabdominal ultrasounds are commonly performed in the first trimester as well. The state legislature leaves the decision of what kind of ultrasound is performed up to the discretion of the doctor who performs it. Never mentioned is the fact that abortion is entirely voluntary. No woman is going to be forcibly tied down, made to have a transvaginal ultrasound, and then forced into an abortion.

Also never mentioned? That most abortions involve vaginal probing, including vacuum aspiration, which takes place in the first trimester. Apparently the abortion isn’t rape, but the ultrasound is. The abortion advocates are selectively hysterical in their outrage over women being “penetrated”.

The real outrage, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with women supposedly being raped. This is entirely about the simple fact that pro-aborts know that for many women, seeing an ultrasound or hearing the heartbeat will be a game-changer. Abortion is a lucrative business, after all, and anything that threatens that business must be stopped.

And while they will often claim that these laws are not needed because women already are informed enough, the truth of the matter is that our investigations have uncovered that women routinely receive false and inaccurate medical information from abortion clinics. Pre-abortion ultrasounds don’t give abortion clinics the opportunity to lie about medical facts or manipulate women into believing that all they have in their uterus is a blob of unfeeling, meaningless flesh. Hearing a heartbeat, and seeing a baby move and wiggle and kick, can have a huge emotional impact on a woman, which is precisely why pro-abortion advocates are so ardently against it. It has absolutely nothing to do with protecting women, and everything to do with protecting their lucrative, bloody business.

  • Relock77219

    If the Dr. can’t get a picture using regular ultrasound, he’ll be forced by law to perform a  transvaginal procedure.  
    In 2012, the FBI changed their definition of rape from “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” to “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”If the woman does not want the ultrasound, it’s rape.

    • MoonChild02

      Did you know that ultrasound is required for abortion from a medical standpoint? In order to truthfully identify the age of the baby, not just what the woman says, because she may be lying, the abortionist has to do an ultrasound. The reason they have to do this is to determine what procedure to use, and the safest way to go about it. The abortionist also has to know how the body of the woman. Some women have a tilted uterus, some have misshapen ovaries, others have other abnormalities. It’s important that the abortionist know these things so that the woman is not injured during the procedure. Ultrasound is vital to the safety of the patient.

      All these laws are doing is giving women the chance to view and hear the ultrasound. They don’t have to view or hear it if they choose not to, but since it must be done anyway, why keep the information from them? After all, a doctor is required to show x-rays and the like to a patient before all treatments and procedures. Why should it be any different for abortion?

      • Nandizodwa

        If an ultrasound is “required” for abortion from a medical standpoint, and the abortionist “has” to do it, why then up until this point has it never been legislated as such, or done for that matter?  Furthermore, in only a small percentage of cases is it actually needed to determine gestational age and what type of abortion procedure is necessary, and in those cases it is medically necessary – but the rest, the majority?  Not at all necessary. Forcing every woman seeking an abortion to have this procedure when in most cases it is not necessary is wrong – it should be done on a case-by-case basis.

        • Kristen M

          MoonChild02 is correct. This legislation is not requiring anything new when it comes to actually performing ultrasounds. They were actually required to do so before. If the clinic didn’t, they weren’t following what they were supposed to do. What this legislation does, is require DOCTORS to do the ultrasound, not anyone else. It also requires them to allow women to see the child and hear the heartbeat. That is something that the doctors/clinic staff wouldn’t allow before. Now they are required to. I’ve actually heard stories from women who actually wanted to see a picture of the ultrasound and the doctors/clinic staff refused. Now by law women can’t be refused to see their child.

          • Relock77219

            If the patient and dr. both choose not to do this medically unnecessary procedure, will the patient be allowed to get the service she came there to get?

          • Rachel Ford

             “Now by law women can’t be refused to see their child.”
            I love how you guys phrase things. See, you’re actually fighting *for* women, as you fight to force things they don’t want on them.
            Furthermore, do you really expect us to believe that women are being refused ultrasounds? Especially when legally they *have* to have them? And if, in this parallel universe, the law is so utterly ignored anyway, what makes you think that state mandated rape laws are going to make the situation any better?

        • Timmy60

          Sure…only in cases where there is a baby involved.

      • Cindybvg

        MoonChild, thank you for a very logical argument. The difference is allowing the patient to view the ultrasound, which most abortionists do not allow. By not allowing the patient to view the ultrasound, they are, in essence, withholding information. In what other medical procedure is this ever allowed? It’s just not ethical. I think the law should also require the ultrasound be performed by a physician who does not stand to profit from the abortion. Ultrasounds can be manipulated in such a way as to not give a clear picture. So unless the physician explains to the patient what he/she is seeing it won’t really matter. What abortionist will point these things out if he still wants to make the sale?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1224361177 María Inés Benítez Formoso

      Relock, you should read more carefully: the kind of ultrasound to be performed is left to the doctor’s discretion according to the particular case, the law does not state that a tarnsvaginal ultrasound has to be performed. That is up to the physician and, needless to say, the patient herself.

      First and foremost, abortions are optional. No one is being forced to go there if they do not want to undergo any of the previous requirements (and an ultrasound is quite a fundamental study to perform on a patient that is to undergo a surgical procedure).

      Second: ultrasounds are also quite the common paraclinic to perform in pregnant patients, regardless if they have an appointment for an abortion or not; not only to check on the baby’s health but her own as well. Why, then, do abortionists not complain about women being ‘forced’ to have ultrasounds during regular obstetric controls?

      Third: doctors have an obligation to properly inform their patients before any kind of procedure and to perform the required paraclinic. That is informed consent. Abortionists may like it or not, but that is how medicine works. A patient may not want to undergo a biopsy before having a cancer treated (and these sad hysterical people may want to call it ‘rape’ to use a trocar needle on those patients), but the thing is: you can not treat cancer before you have an hystopathologist diagnose the type and stage of that cancer, and for that, the good professional needs a sample to examine and that sample has to be taken from a byopsy. If a patient wants to reject the treatment – for whatever reasons, ‘trocarphobia’ included -, they have the right to do so; but if they want to undergo the treatment, a byopsy has to be performed to have the type and stage of the cancer properly diagnosed, so the oncologist (and eventually de surgeon) can design the best plan for the patient.

      Conclusions:
      1.- A transvaginal ultrasound is not required in common obstetric controls. It is recommended in very concrete cases, which are a minority. This law does not state at any moment it has to be a transvaginal ultarsound, that is up to the physician’s discretion depending on the case.
      2.- Abortion is not and will not be privileged regarding this: proper paraclinic has to be performed as before any other procedure, and the patient has to be properly informed so she can give her informed consent. Basic bioethics.
      3.- If the woman wants not the paraclinic to be performed – namely, an ultarsound -, no one is forcing her; but the abortion can not be performed, just as you would not perform chemotherapy on a patient or take him/her to the OR before knowing what type of cancer you are dealing with.
      4.- Let us be honest, shall we: if it is no more than a tumor or a blob of tissue or a parasyte we are speaking about, then why all the crying and whining about the woman seeing it? No one has ever hesitated on having a parasyte or a tumor removed just because you show them the actual thing; why, then, are abortionists so very afraid that a woman may change her mind about an abortion after seeing the baby’s ultrasound? The answer is simple: they know it is a baby – not a tumor, not a parasyte, not a blob of tissue -, and they know just as well as we do that the human heartbeat is one of the most powerful sounds in nature.

      • Relock77219

        Okay, Maria, you say it’s no big deal.  Understood.  Since abortions have been carried out without issue for so many years, why pass this law?

        • Djushi

           Abortions have indeed been carried out for ‘so many years’. That’s something we want to change. The reason I think this law is a good one is, it will save the lives of many babies. Not only that, it will save them by the truth that their mothers see. Double-dandy! Expose the truth, and save a life. On the other hand, risk having to perform a transvaginal ultrasound on a woman who may or may not be comfortable with that, who may or may not be preparing to have various other utensils used inside that part of her body to kill her child. To me, the scales are far on the ‘pass the law!’ side.

          • Rachel Ford

            So you advocate raping women to change their minds about abortion? Because the law fit the federal definition of rape, and you’re advocating for it on the basis that it’ll (you think) change the woman’s mind.

          • Djushi

             If the woman saw it as rape, I’m thinking (and I may be wrong) that she would say, ‘No, I won’t allow you to rape me.’ They say ‘You can’t have an abortion if you don’t let us rape you.’ She says either, ‘Okay then, go ahead and rape me cause I really really really want to, you know, get this fetus killed.’ or ‘Too bad! I’ll keep the baby and you won’t get to rape me OR kill my child!’
            Yes, I see it as truly weird that it would be law that the ultrasound must be done (assuming that it is unneccesary to the safety of the woman getting the abortion), and the woman does not by law have to view it. I’m not saying that makes sense to me! BUT, every little step legislators take making it less likely for women to get abortions is a good step (I think, generally.)
            Personally, I would not count having a transvaginal ultrasound as rape *in most cases*. I’m a virgin, and I reckon it would traumatise me … I am no expert though (obviously). And no, I’m not saying that if a girl has gotten pregnant that means she can’t be raped! That’s ridiculous. But, considering that it is a medical procedure, in a medical situation, probably just prior to a much more invasive medical procedure, and that the woman could, literally, refuse it (by refusing the abortion), I would not consider it rape.
            You can say ‘legally it is!’ But you see, legally doctors are allowed to murder babies. So ‘Legally’ doesn’t carry quite the same weight in this situation. Don’t get me wrong, I am incredibly law-abiding. But this is another law, anyway. Choose your law …
            I am open to explanations of how it is more rape-like however.
            Your first sentence is pretty powerful. But the first phrase is in the harshest words, the second is in the most accepted words. Let me try it another way:

            So you advocate making women have a transvaginal ultrasound to change their minds about killing their children?

            I can see where you’re coming from. If I had your worldview, I’d probably say the same things. But as always, it boils down to: Should unborn humans have of the rights of born humans?

          • Ducats69376

            Hey, Djushi, you seem very thought out on this.  The answer to your question is no.  And most people on this site will agree, although they won’t admit it.

            I answered your question, now please answer mine:

            Setup: Abortion laws are exactly as you want them.  Only YOU know what those are.Now, under these laws a woman seeks an abortion, for whatever reason, and finds a doctor to perform the procedure.  He does.  Doctor and patient part ways satisfied.Question: How do you want the government to punish them?

            I look forward to your answer.

          • Djushi

             Hi Ducats, thanks.

            So this is your stance (just clarifying): You do not So you advocate raping women to change their minds about abortion? AKA You do not advocate making women have a transvaginal ultrasound to change their minds about killing their children?

            Every case is different. But generally, I would want to government to punish the abortionist with around 15 years jail time and the loss of his medical licence. Punish the woman (depending on circumstances) with around 8 years jail time. Check out these webpages: http://www.abort73.com/end_abortion/punishing_illegal_abortion/ and http://www.abort73.com/end_abortion/what_about_illegal_abortions/ .

            Like any criminal case, there are ‘mitigating circumstances’. Ie. repeat offenders, substance abuse (incl. at the time of the abortion),  financial involvement, emotional pressure the woman may have been experiencing, etc., and if the ‘abortion’ was to literally save the woman’s life, no punishment can apply. ‘Abortion’ is in inverted commas there because in that instance the procedure is so different, morally, to any other abortion.

            I do not support the death penalty. (If you’re interested in the subject, I strongly recommend looking at the short book ‘Let the Great Axe Fall’. Very insightful, though I don’t share the author’s final conclusions.) However, I an not an expert, and I don’t live in the US. I am very open to other suggestions, and I’m always willing to learn.

            What do you make of the above? I also look forward to your reply. Though this column is getting rather narrow …
            Djushi

          • Djushi

             Oops, left the ‘So you’ in that second paragraph … should be:

            So this is your stance (just clarifying): You do not advocate
            raping women to change their minds about abortion? AKA You do not
            advocate …

          • Relock77219

            Hey Djushi, I don’t check this site often, hence the delay.  You’re officially the first person ever to answer this question.  So thanks for that.  Since you’re not a US citizen it’s hard to give my remarks and have you relate.  I’ll hit a few:
            15 years prison for the dr., 8 for the woman.  Implies the dr. is more guilty than than the person who willingly walked in seeking the procedure.  That’s backwards.  The police will somehow get tipped off about an alleged abortion, get addresses of dr. and patient, cuff them at home or at work, read miranda rights, book, fingerprint, take in front of a judge where they will plead guilty or not… and on and on.   Many states in the US are releasing prisoners because of overcrowding.  So more prisons must go in the budget, which means raising taxes or go further into debt… etc.  Outlawing an industry makes gov’t. bigger to enforce the new laws…I think you get my point.  Questions?

          • Djushi

            This column is too narrow to be sensible. I’ll reply to this on my ‘new post’. :) 

          • Djushi

             Hmm, didn’t realise how the second-last paragraph reads. I am not particularly open to the idea of the death penalty, I’m open to suggestions on how to punish abortionists etc, and the US system!

          • Djushi

            Oh, forgot to ask … What do you think of my reasoning for not considering a transvaginal ultrasound in these circumstances to be rape in any foreseeable way?

          • Relock77219

            I understand your reasoning.  This analogy will explain my view:  

            A woman held by a man at a house somewhere.  He says “if you let me have sex with you, I’ll let you go home.  Otherwise you must live here with me until you decide to give me sex”.  She decides to have sex.

            Was she raped?  My answer is yes, as with the ultrasound.  The issue is duress.  Thoughts?

          • Djushi

             Yep, I totally get your analogy. I would say that she was raped too …
            However, I would make the analogy more like this:

            Two women are held by someone (male or female, there are female abortionists), somewhere. The someone tells woman #1: ‘If you let me have sex with you, you can kill woman #2. Otherwise, you have to go home and give woman #2 a room for the night.’
            Woman #1 agrees to have sex.

            Was she raped?
            I’m not sure on my answer yet. What are your thoughts?

            PS This column is narrow, can we continute conversation on my ‘new post’?

          • Relock77219

            I can’t find the long post you did 5 hours ago.  I see it in your profile but not on the blog.  So I’ll do my best.  And I won’t write as much as you, no offense.  Still curious about your country–maybe I missed it.  In my question I made it clear her reasons were irrelevant.  She wanted it, dr. provided it, both parted ways happy.  Offer and acceptance.  For this, you want them to serve 23 years in prison.    You mentioned multiple times, ‘probably’.  ‘Probably under duress, probably this, probably that, etc.  Laws cannot be written for a few.  Laws are for the masses without stepping on the rights of the few.  And no matter what you may think, abortion laws do not hinder the rights of the pro-life movement.  Everyone feels differently about big issues in their life.  Some are happy, some regret.  Laws are never loved by all.  They are there because in the big picture, they benefit the greater good, no matter how horrified this makes some people.   If you think pro-life is the majority in the US, watch the push-back as states slowly pass barriers to abortion.  Women will rise up and not back down.  It won’t be abortion doctors who, as you say, love the abortion money, it will be women.  I tried to lay out superficially the process of someone going to prison to make a point–bigger gov’t. as well as finding perpetrators.  Have you thought about how the gov’t. would discover who had an illegal abortion?  You mentioned let robbers out of prison.  This is the fundamental difference between everyone on this site and the law: Growing fetuses are not equal to living people.  I know this horrifies you, but it has to be this way.  Robbers violate the civil rights of living people.  The rights lie with the pregnant woman, not the fetus she carries.  Again, I know this is horrifying, but it has to be this way.   You also mentioned Jesus.  It’s fine to be religious.  But it’s perfectly legal in the US to be an atheist.  Laws cannot be passed that force Atheists to live under religious based laws.  So, sorry, religion cannot be used in this argument.  I’ll wrap this up because I’ve gone on too long.  One thing we all must do: if you call for the outlawing of an industry, you must be prepared to confront the consequences of that outlaw.  It’s not enough to say ‘this is horribly wrong and must stop’.  You have to say, ‘if this stops, what happens to society?’  Remember, outlawing does not affect demand.  Pot, cocaine and heroin are all illegal–how’s their demand?  Are we doing a bang-up job catching those culprits?  Til we talk again, Djushi.

          • Djushi

             Do you still want to talk? It’s been three days …

          • Relock77219

            I gave some answers below.  What country are you from?

          • Djushi

            Australia  : )

          • Relock77219

            Cases such as this will also pop up in courts as a result of such a law:
            “Duress or coercion can also be raised in an allegation of rape or sexual assault to negate a defense of consent on the part of the person making the allegation”.More court cases, making gov’t. bigger and bigger.

          • Djushi

             Check out my reply to your other post – continuing conversation on a new post I put up to give us wider margins for typing :)

          • Relock77219

            Hey Djushi- Your post about the two women and the rapist: I understand your point, but you want me to equate a full grown woman to a zygote growing inside a woman.  I just can’t do that.  And the law can’t do that.(see my answer to your patient/dr. punishment.)  I need a more plausible analogy to work with.  If you started a new thread, I can’t find it.

          • Djushi

            Try collapsing all the threads that you or I haven’t commented on, and load all comments. If you computer has the search text things, type your username in, or mine. I’ve put up another (sorry, quite long) post on the new thread, quoting one of yours.

      • Rachel Ford

        Sometimes abortions are optional. But, assuming we’re talking about a case where the abortion is optional, so what? Flu shots are optional; should we tack heart surgery onto them just because? Or how about we start requiring a colonoscopy when a man comes in for optional procedures?
        And let’s not pretend that this is about giving women more information — there’s no requirement to view the ultrasound, so the whole thing is pointless. This is just about humiliating and inconveniencing women who are making a choice the legislators don’t like.

        • Relock77219

          Big thumbs up, Rachel.  Everyone here knows what you say is true; they will, therefore, avoid addressing anything you mentioned.

          • Elise77

            Who’s not “addressing” anything she mentioned?

          • Relock77219

            “If I agree to have sex this time, then I always agree”.  People don’t want to confront this fundamental issue.   On a different rant, this is an argument for huge, intrusive gov’t.  Women with money will drive to the next state.  Poor women cannot.  Therefore, this law will only affect the poor.  Too many points to make, too tired to continue.

          • Elizabethschuch

             As much as she discredits those who “address”, it seems she refuses to *acknowledge*.

        • Withchangecomesgrowth

          Rachel, “This is just about humiliating and inconveniencing women who are making a choice the legislators don’t like.” You’re saying that getting a vaginal ultrasound is humiliating. Is that because the penetration aspect of it? Before you go around throwing cheap arguments at people, maybe you should know what a woman is requesting happen inside her vagina. THIS, is what women are asking for: 
          http://herestheblood.com/

          And you think they’re worried about a sterile little hose that will detect their child’s heartbeat? Right.

          • Rachel Ford

             Withchange, again, it comes down to consent. It’s not humiliating for consenting adults to have sex; it is degrading to be violated against your will. It is not degrading to have medical procedures you want; it is degrading to have unwanted ones foisted upon you by legislators for absolutely no benefit (again, the whole point of this is made moot by the fact that *viewing* the ultrasound is not mandatory…the procedure is the only mandated part). There simply is no way to pretty this one up — it is completely self-defeating, unless the point is to humiliate and degrade women. And I don’t think such committed legislators would go through so much trouble for nothing, hmm?

          • Timmy60

            Possibly the point is SAVING THE BABY!

          • Rachel Ford

             If that was the point, and they really believed that viewing ultrasound images would do that, they’d mandate that after the procedure she had to look at the image. Instead they only mandated that the woman be probed against her will.

          • Relock77219

            Hey Timmy!  Way to go!  This statement proves your anger is directed at pregnant women who walk into abortion clinics.  Nothing else.  Will you admit this?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001485371359 Grace Garner

            So, your problem with this bill is that it requires an unnecessary procedure that women may find invasive? I can understand where you’re coming from, and you’re right, if an ultrasound isn’t necessary. Except it is. It may not be absolutely necessary for the medical procedure itself, but it’s necessary for informed consent.

            As was pointed out, ultrasounds are usually done anyway. The only problem is that women often aren’t given the choice of viewing the ultrasound. This bill gives women the choice. If women were already given the choice, the bill wouldn’t be necessary. It isn’t mandatory for the women to view it in the same way that it isn’t mandatory for your doctor to explain to you what any surgery is like. I’m pretty sure you can refuse most of the knowledge of what exactly you’re going to go through and what changes will be made–so long as you sign the forms and everything, as you don’t have to read them–but that doesn’t really make sense.

            So the abortion procedure itself can be all hunky-dory without an ultrasound, but that’s no good if the women aren’t consenting to what they think they are.

          • Rachel Ford

            A law mandating that doctor offer the woman the option of an ultrasound would be a-ok by me. Forcing it on her, though, with no intent for her to view the image is not just giving her the option for more info; it’s forcing an unwanted procedure on her, when not forcing her gave her the same options.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1375425969 Dana Clark

             That is a truly disturbing video, a must see, but disturbing.

        • SuperLogic

          Wow, what a ridiculous and completely absurd argument. “Flu shots are optional, should we tack heart surgery onto them just because?”  Um, the big difference being, that heart surgery would have absolutely nothing to do with a Flu shot, whereas a  sonogram or ultrasound is routinely performed on a patient undergoing an abortion or birth.  Same thing with a colonoscopy.   This is all about giving women information so they can make an informed and knowledgeable decision and reducing abortions.   Why are you so adamant about keeping women in the dark??   Don’t you have enough confidence in them to make their own informed decision??

          • Rachel Ford

             LOL. Nice try “logic”, but it’s not going to work. See, I have absolute confidence in women to make the best decision for them. I would have no problem with mandating that doctors offer ultrasounds and medically accurate and relevant information to women. I do have a problem with forcing unwanted vaginal penetration on women — because probing a woman’s vagina when she has no intention of looking at the image you’re going to show her isn’t “giving her information”. It’s subjecting her to a degrading process because you don’t like the choice that she chose to make.
            So let me ask you this…why don’t you have the confidence in women to know when they don’t want things thrust up their vagina?

          • SuperLogic

             You mean invasive vaginal penetration on women as opposed to something as non-invasive as an abortion suction??  :oP 

            And as mentioned these medical procedures are already performed on woman who would be undergoing an abortion or pregnancy.  You’re pretty naive if you think that abortion is a nice, neat, non-invasive procedure.

            Gee, they don’t want things thrust up their vagina??  Hmmm…  guess they should have thought of that right at the start? 

          • Elizabethschuch

             Perhaps you missed this in the article: “Of course, the Virginia state law does not require a transvaginal
            ultrasound, and transabdominal ultrasounds are commonly performed in the
            first trimester as well.”

        • Hancoj1

          What a load of bullocks.

          Its “rape” for a woman to have an ultrasound probe inserted in her vagina, that she gave consent for, yet its not rape for dilating rods, suction cannula or forceps to be inserted in her vagina to tear the child out of her womb?

          All done with consent. All done with intent to ensure her health.  If she’s so worried about having things in her vagina, perhaps she shouldn’t be having sex, or if, lo and behold she does get magically pregnant from those pesky foeti that climb under door ways at two in the morning, she should refrain from an abortioon.  That way she doesn’t have to worry about anything going into her vagina, only coming out.

          • Rachel Ford

            “Its “rape” for a woman to have an ultrasound probe inserted in her vagina, that she gave consent for”

            That is not what I’m saying. An ultrasound that a woman wants and consents to is just that; an ultrasound that includes unwanted vaginal penetration forced on her by legislators is rape.

            “If she’s so worried about having things in her vagina, perhaps she shouldn’t be having sex”
            Please tell me that you are not saying that having consensual sex means that you have no right to object to unwanted vaginal penetration? Because that, basically, means that you can’t rape a woman who is no longer a virgin, because, hey, she agreed to sex once, therefore she can’t complain about penetration…

          • Lararomont

             No, you have twisted the meaning. Actions have consequences. If you choose to have sex, you may become pregnant. If you want to kill the human inside you, you will have to have an abortion. Even before this law, abortions have used transvaginal ultrasounds to ensure that all of the child’s limbs have been removed to prevent serious infection later. If one does not want to go through the ultrasound used with or before an abortion simply because it is “invasive”, then they should reconsider their recreational invasive acts that produces the consequence.   By pro-choice logic,  we could *twist* it to say that a pregnancy is “rape” because *something*  (sperm) invaded her-despite the fact that she chose to have sex. In the same sense, the ultrasound is “rape” because something invaded her that she didn’t want as a result of her prior actions.  See the parallel?    I have had a T.V. ultrasound (for a medical condition) and I am a virgin, it hurt about as much as a tampon. It wasn’t my first choice, but otherwise you will have to wait for your bladder to fill up (to push against the uterus) to do the Trans-abdominal instead. It just took less time to do the T.V.   It’s ridiculous that people are equating normal medical procedures to something as horrific as rape. Changing the meaning of words is a waste of time and will not help women’s rights when their are women having *forced* abortions in other countries or raped because they have no rights.

          • Lararomont

             But to be clear, transvaginal ultrasounds are not required.  I just wanted to rebut your logic with my own.

        • Timmy ’60

          ‘Course, maybe the BABY would want the mother inconvenienced…

      • Nandizodwa

        Addressing #4: It’s the principle of the matter.  I have no problem with a woman being fully informed before any procedure, but I do have a problem with unnecessary, expensive tests being done.  On the one hand our healthcare costs are out of control already and we are instituting safeguards and watchdogs to prevent UNNECESSARY tests/procedures being done – and on the other hand a group of small-minded politicians don’t agree with abortion and so would like to force women to undergo additional UNNECESSARY procedures in an attempt to shame them into not having an abortion.  Or possibly to make abortion to expensive for the woman.  Either way, what is the likely outcome?  Shame from the ultrasound wears off quick when you’re trying to raise a child you didn’t want and couldn’t afford in the first place.  You made it impossible for someone to afford an abortion? Exactly how do you expect them to afford a baby then?!?  

        You can turn the news on almost every night and catch yet another story of a child abused, neglected or murdered by its own parent(s) – do you think forcing women to have unwanted children is going to decrease these incidents?!?

    • Seanatmatt

      ‘Course, maybe the baby would have wanted the ultrasound….

    • Jenna Schaefer

      Then she doesn’t get the abortion! the law would make it a packaged deal. It would be nothing more than procedure. The law would make consent to abortion, consent to the whole abortion process. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless she’s being strapped down and forced to have an abortion against her will, it’s not rape. 

  • Oldmanbob

    Well said, the so called pro-choice movement is all about money.  They are in fact noting more or less than killers for cash.
    I get more information from my vet about my horses than PP etc. want to give and often don’t give over killing a baby.   People should rate higher than critters.

    • Nandizodwa

      Ah, so you’re all for legal euthanasia of those suffering then?  You know, like we do to our critters. Forcing women and/or the state/taxpayers to pay for medically unnecessary procedures such as expensive ultrasounds sounds a bit greedy to me.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mira.keeley Mira Keeley

        So…. Ultrasounds are expensive and that is a reason to not get one? Darlink, you obviously haven’t been pregnant. First off, part of theabortion cost covers an ultrasound that already is required by law. Secondly, With ANY, let me repeat that, A.N.Y. procedure done with a preborn person, be it prenatal testing, surgery, abortion, ANYTHING short of a monthly exam includes an ultrasound. Comparing it to rape (which obviously you haven’t been through either, and pray you never will. Not fun, and the PTSD from it is no hayride either) is ridiculous and absurd. An ultrasound is NOT unnecessary, doctors don’t magically get X-ray vision once their M.D. Is handed to them. How abouts you go and volunteer at your local coubty health department and learn some basic info on the ins and outs ofsome medical procedures. Or better yet, since you are so concerned for rape victims, such as myself, go volunteer at a battered women’s shelter and stare into the face of what real rape does.

        • Nandizodwa

          First, *I* did not say an ultrasound was comparable to rape, what *I* said is that it is not medically necessary to have an ultrasound in order to have an abortion.  Either way you look at it, it’s still an added unnecessary expense that was not there before.  And again, NOT THERE BEFORE, it has not been required by law that an ultrasound be performed before each and every abortion, whether it be by a nurse or a doctor, it has never been required.  How about you go through having an abortion, or get a medical degree, before you go preaching about things you know nothing about?  Either way, it IS a form of sexual harassment according to Virginia law – you know, you can’t have the legal abortion unless you have a completely unnecessary medical procedure that you will also have to pay for – quite similar to your boss stating he won’t give you your paycheck unless you first consent to having sex with him – that’s illegal.

          • MoonChild02

            Sorry, but have you ever studied anything about medicine? Have you ever studied anything about obstetrics? I’m guessing not, if you’re arguing that an ultrasound is invasive and unnecessary.  This is pro-life 101. Ultrasounds may not have been legally necessary beforehand, but they have always been standard practice in medicine, especially in obstetrics.  The age of the baby must be identified by the abortionist in order to determine what procedure to use, and the safest way to go about it.  The abortionist has to determine the location of the pregnancy, to make sure that it is not ectopic. The abortionist also has to know what the woman’s reproductive organs look like, as some women have a tilted uterus, or other abnormalities. It’s important that the abortionist know these things so that the woman is not injured during the procedure. If a woman’s reproductive organs are misshapen in any way, then the woman can end up with a lacerated or perforated uterus, cervical injuries, etc.

            In Stuart v. Huff, describing her typical process for abortion patients, Dr. Gretchen S. Stuart stated in her declaration, “After determining that the patient has a support system and is comfortable with her decision to have an abortion, I perform an ultrasound.”
            http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/files/Declaration%20of%20Dr.%20Gretchen%20S.%20Stuart.pdf

            Here is another site explaining abortion, from the United States National Institutes of Health:
            http://www.acog.org/~/media/For%20Patients/faq043.ashx

            Here is another site explaining the process of an abortion, from the United Kingdom’s National Health Service:
            http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/How-is-it-performed.aspx

            All of these state that ultrasounds are used before abortion. If I could find more articles, I would, but the search results keep coming up with articles on this case and those like it.

          • Nandizodwa

            Really?  I don’t think so.  For the record, I work in the medical field.  For the record, I have had an abortion and there was no ultrasound performed.  It is NOT necessary in the majority of cases.  Of course it’s considered “standard practice in medicine” during a pregnancy that is going to be kept – it is NOT standard practice to have an ultrasound done on every woman seeking an abortion.  

          • nicolec

             Right, because the abortionist didn’t want you to see the Life inside of you… What medical field do you work in?

            It my thoughts, it would just make sense to think of of safety of the woman if she chooses to have the abortion. If a sonogram is what will do that, and it is CONSENSUAL, then yeah definitely. I feel like moonchild’s argument is pretty clear cut. It appears to be -having been in the Psychology field long enough- that there are women who have had abortions and are dealing with the pains, regrets and psychological symptoms that stem from it. I think if a women chooses that abortion is the option they are considering… at least be COMPLETELY knowledgeable about the procedure they are going to have. Without a doubt it is invasive.

            Its all the Devil’s work and boy he’s having himself a good ole time watching us all argue. So sad.

          • Nandizodwa

            You do not need an ultrasound to be completely informed.  It is not consensual if it’s mandated.  It is not a medically necessary procedure.

          • http://www.facebook.com/mira.keeley Mira Keeley

            I highly doubt you are in medical field, cause I am, and one in this field would not be as insulting to another woman as you are, at least if they are professional, which you have proven you arent. What field do you work in? how many pregnant women do you deal with? Also, as one who has lost three children (no abortion, 2 miscarriages and one death by asphexiation from the cord. Want to take back that callous statement about me having an abortion now?) I ultrasounds done continuously! 4 for my last lost pregnancy! Either your doctor was a quack and did not care about your personal well being when you terminated a life, or you blocked out the ultrasound. I’d believe the former, though.

          • Nandizodwa

            First off, I was no more “unprofessional” than the person above me, or yourself for that matter – so I guess neither one of you work in the medical field like you claim.  Secondly, having a miscarriage  is not the same as having an abortion – of course ultrasounds are done if medically necessary with miscarriages (and btw, you may think I’m a heartless bitch but I am truly sorry for your losses), but that doesn’t mean it is medically necessary for every abortion.As for the doctor I saw, completely professional and no complications – and I have had a transvaginal ultrasound for other reasons, so I do know when it is necessary they will do them, necessary being the key word.

          • MoonChild02

             I’m sorry my wording came off so callous and unprofessional. As an assault survivor, I become rather offended when someone compares something in health care to rape if it’s designed to protect them from injury. Also, I never said that I work in the medical field, I said studied. I don’t work in the medical field, but I have taken classes, mostly in first aid/emergency medicine (I’m generally “jackie” of all trades, master of none, and have been in college for way too long), and I have several family members in the medical field. Everything I have studied says that ultrasounds are used in abortion to help make it safer, for the reasons which I stated above.

            Here are a few other sites on abortion and the use of ultrasound, including a doctor’s blog, and a news blog which quotes Planned Parenthood as saying they will not do an abortion without ultrasound:
            http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/pre-abortion-ultrasound-the-medical-evidence-and-why-its-important/
            http://www.prochoice.org/education/cme/online_cme/m4ultrasound.asp
            http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-abortions-ultrasounds/
            http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-rape-myth-debunked-99-do-ultrasounds/

          • Nandizodwa

            I have to question if you even read the links you’ve posted.  The very first link, the one from the doctor?  If you had actually read what she had written you would know she is against this law and in fact ends the article with ”
            There is no medical evidence to support ultrasound laws. They are a waste of taxpayer dollars and do nothing to accomplish the goal of reducing abortion.”

            The other 3 links are the same story repeated over about PP requiring ultrasounds for every abortion – after checking PP resources I found they only state an ultrasound “may” be done, not that they are required.  Why would PP be against the law if they already do this?  They don’t, or at least they didn’t when I was there.  And since they were all the same story, I seriously question the source on that one.

  • Relock77219

    “… Also never mentioned? That most abortions involve vaginal probing, including vacuum aspiration, which takes place in the first trimester. Apparently the abortion isn’t rape, but the ultrasound is. The abortion advocates are selectively hysterical in their outrage over women being “penetrated”. ..

    Abortion is not rape because the woman is GIVING PERMISSION for the penetration.
    You guys continue to demonstrate your belief that your readers are incredibly naive and impressionable. 

    • prolifepagans

      If the woman is giving permission for the abortion, she will also be giving permission via a consent form for the ultrasound prior to the abortion.

    • genennene

      Your despiration is showing.  If a woman wants to have an abortion, she will have an ultrasound.  If she does not, then she will not have an ultrasound.

      • Relock77219

        The woman voluntarily walked through the clinic doors seeking an abortion.  This medically necessary procedure involves penetration.  She consents to this.  She does not walk voluntarily into the clinic in search of a medically unnecessary penetrating ultrasound.  If she denies this medically unnecessary procedure, the gov’t will not let her have what she seeks.  Hence, this is forced.  Your anger is directed at pregnant women who walk through clinic doors–not doctors, gov’t, or PP.  Will you finally admit the source of your rage is pregnant women?

        • Withchangecomesgrowth

               Do you know how pathetic your arguments are? They seem to grow more flawed and feeble with each new post. Nobody has rage against pregnant women. The issue here is not about rape. It’s about the fact that women want to do whatever they please with no responsibility. Now, I know that there are cases where women have underdeveloped pelvises or are rape victims, but those are exceptions. I’m not going to get into how, or WHY the woman is pregnant. Life is hard. Raising babies is hard. If she wants to opt out of the responsibility of birthing/raising a child, she has to understand that there negatives that come with abortion. We have a society of people who run from responsibility, and THAT is why pro-abortionists are screaming “rape”.
               Frankly, nobody wants to go through the discomfort of a vaginal ultrasound, but nobody is forcing women to get abortions in the first place. Nobody is forcing those women to walk into the clinic and ask to have their babies “removed” like they’re some kind of cancer.    The problem is not in the sonogram law; it’s in the childish attitudes of Americans as a whole who want to stomp their feet and have things handed to them with no responsibility of their own.

          • Nandizodwa

            So why don’t the politicians wanting to pass this bill just state the damn truth, they want this done to guilt women into not having abortions.  And then we can look forward to another generation of neglected and abused children.  How do you think we ended up with such an irresponsible society in the first place?  Bad parenting.  

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeep.obsessed Brooke Mehr

            And how does telling women that they can get rid of their children help them be better parents? Killing the child solves nothing.

          • Nandizodwa

            Never said it did, in fact, if the women can “get rid of their children” then they aren’t parents, ergo no bad parenting going on.  

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeep.obsessed Brooke Mehr

            Taking the children out of the equation after they’ve already been created, doesn’t eliminate the Parent status. It just lets them out of the responsibility of parenting.

          • Nandizodwa

            Like having a child somehow automatically makes someone a good parent – I think child abuse statistics disproves that point.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeep.obsessed Brooke Mehr

            You’re taking out the possibility of adoption. Nobody is forcing them to be parents, but  it makes no sense to not at least give the child life. If the woman can’t raise the child, there are so many couples out there who would love to take if off her hands.

          • nicolec

             Just sayin- i think you hit the nail on the head.

          • Relock77219

            WCCG, thank you so much for responding.  Finally an intelligent post.  I’m desperate for someone to answer my question and you just might have the brains to tackle it.  Here it is:

            Setup: Abortion laws are exactly as you want them.  Only YOU know what those are.
            Now, under these laws a woman seeks an abortion, for whatever reason, and finds a doctor to perform the procedure.  He does.  Doctor and patient part ways satisfied.

            Question: How do you want the government to punish them?

            I look forward to your answer, WCCG.

          • Rachel Ford

            So…
            1) Agreeing to one instance of penetration means you deserve others too.
            2) It’s childish not to want the government mandating unwanted vaginal penetration.
            3) You don’t have any rage against women, you just see this as an issue of “those” “spoiled” “women [who] want to do whatever they please with no responsibility”.

            So, why don’t you tell us how you really feel about women, at least those ones who dare to live differently than you would mandate they live?

        • With time comes change….

          First off, you sound childish and frankly stupid for even posting this! In the case that you are talking about, she HAS to have by LAW an ULTRASOUND to determine the age of the child! It does not have to be trans-vaginal but because most want an accurate age that is the best way to do it. Its not FORCED! God forbid the child is over 12 weeks which by most places correct me if Im not wrong, it is illegal to get an abortion UNLESS it is a risk to the mothers health. In that case she has to go to a special clinic that deals with that. Your talking sadly to someone who has seen people go threw this and is studying radiology and trying to get into ultrasound, I asked all of them this and they TOLD me from THEIR mouths, if the baby at the time was over 12 weeks, most places will not even THINK of doing an abortion. Their is no rage of or at pregnant woman. They give you a choice of which way you want to do it but it is required in some states that you have to have one or else yes you will not get it which I think is totally fair!

          http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf

          Those are some of the states, I know their are more.

          • Ducats69376

            Hey, Withtime, good post.  I’ll ask the question in a simpler way:

            If pregnant women did not enter clinics to seek abortions, would this website exist?

            It won’t take much of your time to answer.  Looking forward to it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Doc-Kimble/100001742531811 Doc Kimble

    Here we are making laws about rape, defining it as penetration of a vagina or an anus of another person without consent of the victim, by oral means or means of an object, which is precisely what constitutes gay sex, to the largest degree, one must imagine.The only difference being consent, which “de-viticmizes” the recipient of the heretofore defined “rape” descriptive. So gay sex, then, is legal consent to rape, one assumes, which is asked, then, to be defined as “marriage.”

    One can soon easily see another re-definition by the courts of “insanity.”

    • Nandizodwa

      What?!?  The same could then be said of straight couples. 

    • Letscook1

       How the heck is consensual gay sex rape anymore than consensual straight sex?

    • Oedipa

       Too cooky by half.

    • Relock77219

      I think Doc is goofing on this site.  He’s probably some brilliant satirist.  Bravo, Doc.

      • Oedipa

        I sure hope so. Because if not, he has no idea what heterosexual sex is about either, no matter what he thinks about gay sex.

  • Kathy

    i totally understand where these people are coming from.I for one am AGAINST abortions. They are babys from the time of conception. and 2nd there are sooooo many people looking to adopt babys now a days it makes me sick to think well who cares lets just kill it..  Maby just maby they can save someone from making a huge mistake in their life.. But the abortion clinics dont think that.. everyone can say well it will cost the state a large amount of money to proform a ultrasound on every woman wanting a abortion.. And the Abortion doesn’t cost a cent? i beg to differ!!! Thats why they are sooo popular! But sad one day all those woman if they didn’t repent will stand before a mighty God and have to explain that it would of wrecked their lives to have the precious gift God had for them!   And funny a lot of men… (agian money i am assuming) are the ones that are for abortion… Wonder if some of these woman would opt out if the men in their lives stood up and took responsibilty for the baby and let their Girlfriends/wives know that they will support them in everything with the baby.. Not saying every man but i wonder if its alot of them.. as for Rape.. Come on Seriously its a ultra sound. done everyday.. Maby if everyone stopped thinking sexually about medical procedures that wouldn’t even be a thought!

    • Rachel Ford

       Kathy, it’s the unwanted part of it that is rape. People have consensual sex every day, and it’s not rape either. Forcible vaginal penetration is a different matter though; that’s what this bill would have mandated.

  • Carolynrose8082

    as a rape victim you idiots I would much rather have a sonogram any day of the week, maybe you should be raped then you would know the difference don’t act like you are taking up for womens rights when you say something stupid like that and a rape victim reads it you make me sick

    • Relock77219

      The FBI, by broadening their definition, qualifies more violations as rape than they did before.  Hence stiffer charges.  This is in the best interest of all rape victims.  Don’t you see this, Carolyn?

      • Charlotte

        Carolyn is a rape victim, and as a victim knows more fully what is or is not rape. Personally I agree with the article: The abortion process also involves a ‘penetration’ of the same sort, except with a destructive intention. Therefore, if you label an ultrasound rape, you must also label the abortion process rape.

        • Rachel Ford

          Rape is penetration without consent. Being raped doesn’t give you the authority to change the definition to exclude rape that you don’t want to call rape.
          A woman seeking an abortion that involves penetration has consented to it; therefore, due to consent, it is not rape. It’s really pretty simple…

          • Santanagarcia86

            It is standard procedure to perform an ultrasound prior to an abortion-the only difference is now women will be able to see their babies first and people who are having a abortion dont want to see the baby they will be murdering

          • Doxie_mam06

             Ok, it may not be considered rape, but it should be considered murder… when that baby’s heart is beating and you choose an abortion, you are killing a living being… I have yet to understand how it is when someone injures a women who is pregnant, no matter how far along they may be, and it results in the loss of the baby, they can be charged with murder, but yet a women can choose to go and have their baby murdered by abortion, and that is ok… now how twisted is that…

          • Relock77219

            Hi Doxie.  I can answer your concern, or, why it appears twisted.  But it requires you answering one question that you probably don’t want to answer.  If you do answer it we can brainstorm, and it will become increasingly clear why this option is open to women.  So here goes…

            Setup: Abortion laws are exactly as you want them.  Only YOU know what those are.Now, under these laws a woman seeks an abortion, for whatever reason, and finds a doctor to perform the procedure.  He does.  Doctor and patient part ways satisfied.Question: How do you want the government to punish them?

            Give me your answer and we can go from there.  Take care.

        • Relock77219

          Hey Charlotte, thanks for chatting.  The definition of rape is ‘no consent’.  If you want the abortion, you consent to it.  Therefore, it is not rape.  If the state says we must put this medically unnecessary probe into you even if you don’t consent in order to get your abortion, that is rape.  See how one is consensual and the other isn’t?  The words to key on are ‘consent’ and ‘medically unnecessary’.  This was fun.  Anything else you’d like to chat about?

    • Angelina

      Although some women/girls get raped doesn’t mean all of them have abortions or would think about them. I have 2 very close friends who were raped and they are keeping/kept the baby and are going to raise him/her. It just depends on how strong of a person you are to be able to live with that. But why kill the infant. It’s not the infants fault that they were created. They deserve a life too, even if that means they are adopted.

    • B.A.U.M.

      This… not only was almost unreadable… but both sides are being over the top about this. Sorry you had to go through such a terrible experience in life, but how dare you wish rape upon someone else in this world. You make me sick missy, and to be honest. I will never again open this page to see if you’ve responded. You are a terrible person for wishing that on someone, and I AM sorry it happened to you. Maybe you should sit back and calm down before you open up your mouth (or type) something that makes you look incredibly idiotic.

  • Xo8stars

    Plain truth abortion is murder. I would not picket an abortion clinic, everyone will have to answer for their own actions and live with their decissions.

  • DeanfromCanada

    If an ultrasound is mandatory for an optional procedure, this would change the mind of most pro-aborts from the get-go. To call something inflammatory such as rape to better balance the perspective of the one getting the procedure is tantamount to emotional rape as a scare tactic is used to discourage logical, reasoned discourse and true information.

  • http://twitter.com/IamAwomanist Nicci Faw

    if the ultrasound is not OPTIONAL then it is RAPE. Any penetration with ANY object that you are COERCED into having inside of your vagina is RAPE. The abortion is a CHOICE, the Mandatory and UNNECESSARY transvaginal penetration is NOT a choice.

    • MoonChild02

      As I said about, an ultrasound is already required for an abortion. The age of the baby must be identified by the abortionist in order to determine what
      procedure to use, and the safest way to go about it. The abortionist
      also has to know what the woman’s reproductive organs look like. Some women have a tilted
      uterus, some have misshapen ovaries, others have other abnormalities.
      It’s important that the abortionist know these things so that the woman
      is not injured during the procedure. Ultrasound is vital to the safety of the patient.

      What this law is does is make sure that a doctor or licensed sonographer does the ultrasound, and that the doctor or sonographer offers the woman the choice to see and hear the ultrasound. The woman does not have to see or hear the ultrasound if she chooses not to do so. The type of ultrasound used is up to the person who does the ultrasound. If the woman doesn’t want a vaginal ultrasound, and the doctor or sonographer cannot get a clear picture any other way, she doesn’t have to get the abortion. It’s as simple as that. In any case, using ultrasound in preparation for an abortion is already standard practice.

      • Relock77219

        Wow, very simple.  So, if it’s no big deal, why pass the law?

        • MoonChild02

          The law is being passed because those licensed to operate the ultrasound machines aren’t the ones doing so, and because many women have said that they were not given the choice to see or hear the ultrasound, even when they wanted to. Many abortionists have seen that ultrasounds cause people to change their minds about abortion, so they don’t want to show the ultrasounds to anyone, even the women being operated on. Therefore, the law has to be passed.

  • Oedipa

    I think both sides are a little lost in the weeds. Ultrasounds *are* done routinely for the procedure, especially for second trimester. It’s also a little insulting to women to suggest that the cost of the ultrasound would somehow prevent her from getting the abortion. After making that wrenching choice, I can’t imagine a woman who reverses her decision just based on costs. And most importantly, recent studies have shown that viewing the ultrasound has no impact on decision-making.

    • Nandizodwa

      If they are done routinely, then it wouldn’t be “especially for” second trimester abortions.  The point is that most abortions occur in the first trimester, and in the first trimester it needs to be a transvaginal ultrasound – and in the first trimester that is not a medically necessary procedure.  They are not done routinely in first trimester abortions.

      You think it’s insulting that cost is an issue?  Have you ever had an abortion or gone with someone who was having an abortion?  With 43+ million people without medical insurance the whole cost of the procedure is out-of-pocket for them, and it isn’t cheap.  Adding on another few hundred dollars for a completely unnecessary ultrasound in an underhanded way of attempting to guilt an already poor woman into keeping a baby she can’t afford could very well make the abortion itself unattainable for some.  

      • Oedipa

        I just don’t think cost is the best argument. But I hear you, the larger effort to stigmitize and shame the woman who is going through this has the costs as a component of that.

        It’s too bad, really, that the culture warriors pay no attention to the studies that have shown these ultrasounds do not change the patient’s decision-making.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=745687064 Finton Wade

    Rape!LOL If the woman wants an abortion in reality then she is asking to be raped because the doc has to go in that vagina with instruments.

    • Relock77219

      If she ASKS FOR THE PROCEDURE it’s not rape.  Check Wikipedia if you need a definition.  Is everyone on this site insane?

      • Djushi

         Hey, I’m on the ‘other side’ to you, at least I think I am, but I too can’t understand how other people can’t understand that! Starting from square #1 time and time again can get very frustrating. I totally understand the capitals.

  • Als_gh

    This makes me so mad! I am pro choice. I think that each woman has the right to choose either have an abortion or have the baby. It should have NOTHING to do with anyone else – certainly not the mostly male law makers and especially not the intolerant pro-lifers, spouting religious bile. You have your beliefs, to which you are 100% entitled and so does every woman who chooses to make this extremely difficult decision. Those wanting to enforce this law are doing so under the misguided assumption that it will make the woman change her mind. IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!

    IF a vaginal ultrasound is done without the consent of the patient, it is, technically, rape.

    • Relock77219

      Als, don’t let this goof ball site get to you–that’s exactly what they want.  Do like I do, calmly ask them specific questions.  They usually ignore you because if they answer honestly it will show 90% of these people are pro-choice.  Click on my profile and copy and paste my questions.  It’s fun, you should try it.

    • Djushi

       Okay. I’m going to assume you believe that the unborn progeny of a human is also human. I’ve got to start somewhere, so if you don’t believe that, let me know and I’ll try to start before that assumption.
      Do you believe that an unborn human is a person?
      Do you believe that every person has the innate right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? (A Yank phrase, but then I’m guessing you’re in the US. I’m not, btw.)
      Do you believe that it is right for the state to make laws prohibiting theft, murder, rape, and drink driving?

      On to the inferences in your post …
      Whether we are intolerant or not does not make the position we hold invalid. The Truth is the Truth no matter who does or does not believe it.
      As for spouting religious bile, there are pro-lifers who are athiest, agnosic etc. The favourite group to mention at the moment is Feminists for Life. Again, the truth is the truth, no matter what.
      Your answers to my above questions will hopefully help, as you try to change my mind and I try to change yours as to whether it *is* our business to ‘interfere’ in the abortion scene. If you don’t actually want to change my mind, I don’t know what you posted for in the first place …
      I agree with your last paragraph. It is, technically, rape to perform a vaginal ultrasuond with the consent of the patient. If you reply, I’ll write about what I think atm.
      Hoping you reply! :)

      • Djushi

         Where’s everybody gone?

  • Rachel Ford

    LOL. So because an abortion involves vaginal probing that the woman has consented to, it’s ok to probe her against her will? Maybe because she agreed (maybe) to sex the first time, she can’t be raped, either, because, hey, she’s ok with it once, so all bets are off? That’s some pretty twisted rationale…

    • Phillip

      No it’s not. “Because you want bread, you should have to buy it? That’s some pretty twisted rational.”

      This is a safe procedure to stop abortion clinics from giving false medical information to women before getting an abortion. If she doesn’t want one after seeing her child, that’s completely up to her.

      That’s like saying men getting a prostate exam is rape because they’re forced to have a finger in their butt to do the procedure. I think family guy did an episode on that. It was hilarious. As is your rational.

      • Rachel Ford

         Here’s the thing, Philip, you can give perfectly accurate information without vaginally probing the victim, err, patient. The ridiculous part of this is that they don’t even insist on giving the information — the probing was the mandated part, not the information. How, exactly, do you explain that as giving “information”?
        Your bread analogy, btw, is ridiculous. No one is saying that she shouldn’t pay for the procedure she did want; we’re just saying that politicians tacking on unwanted vaginal probings is unwarranted and fits the definition of rape. Oh, and if your doctor insisted on butt probings when you went in for your flu shot or some other separate procedure, yeah, I’d say that was rape too…

        • Elise77

          Here’s the thing, Rachel, the abortion providers historically DON’T give perfectly accurate information, and a lot of former customers are upset that their “blobs of tissue” had fingers and toes and beating hearts and limbs that were ripped off of their living bodies by high power vacuums.

          “No one is saying that she shouldn’t pay for the procedure she did want…” Yeah, Rachel, actually a LOT of people are saying that. But that’s a whole other topic.

          If a doctor did an unrelated and unexpected butt probing during a flu shot appointment, yeah, that’d be a violation. However, if you KNEW the doctor was going to perform said probing and the ENTIRE appointment was voluntary, it’s NOT RAPE.

          Abortion is a voluntary procedure. Buyer beware: In Virginia, it includes a mandatory ultrasound (although NOT, apparently, a transvag one DESPITE the hysteria AND the COMPLETE IRRELEVANCE). If you voluntarily undergo an abortion, you consent to the ultrasound. It’s part of the package. That’s NOT RAPE. You understand when you schedule your appointment to murder your offspring that you will be receiving an ultrasound. It’s implicit.

          As far as a transvaginal ultrasound is concerned, it involves a
          transducer which is likely considerably less substantial than the, shall
          we say, “impregnating member.” And it is CERTAINLY more comfortable
          than a metal speculum, a pointed vacuum hose, a sharp curette, or, for
          that matter, the FREAKING STIRRUPS.

          “It’s NOT MURDER!!! It’s a MEDICAL PROCEDURE!!!”

          I submit to you that an ultrasound IS, in fact, a medical procedure. Furthermore, a procedure that produces a tiny, dismembered human being FAR more closely approximates murder than a procedure that involves a transducer and some cold lubricant squirted on one’s belly approximates rape.

          Let’s not pretend that this is ANYTHING other than a pathetic attempt to prevent women from having to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the fact that there’s a human being growing inside of them. This whole “rape” garbage is pure, unadulterated BS and you KNOW it. And yes, it’s a VILE slap in the face of ACTUAL victims of rape.

          Disgusting.

          • SarahC

            exactly read my reply.

          • SarahC

            and also I was 16 &1/2 weeks along and they knew the sex.

          • Rachel Ford

            Umm, Elise…you need to calm down and read what I wrote. I am not against a woman having information or access to an ultrasound if she so desires. This, though, wasn’t about either of those — the Virginia legislature didn’t even mandate that she had to *see* the results of the ultrasound, just that it had to be done. So, no, it’s not about information; it’s about forcing something on women.
            As for your explanation that because the legislators tack a separate procedure onto abortion, women are agreeing to both, that’s simply not true because they are distinct medical procedures according to the world of medicine, and you are preventing women from having the procedure they do want unless they also submit to one they do not, not on the advice or recommendations of doctors, but on the arbitrary will of lawmakers. Again, if lawmakers decided you didn’t get your flu shot without heart surgery, you would have your same twisted type of “consent”, but it would still be forced against the patient’s will.
            Be honest here. Nothing about the bill was designed to empower women by giving them more information; it was a punitive measure, meant to dissuade women from making the lawmakers decided they shouldn’t.

          • Elise77

            “Punitive” measure. How is it “punitive”? Yes, it is meant to dissuade women who might have regrets if they realized they’d killed a living human being. Are you SERIOUSLY comparing a non-invasive, non-surgical procedure to freaking HEART SURGERY? I think you need to get a grip. Diagnostic procedures come standard with other surgical procedures. An ultrasound has to be performed in most cases to determine gestation for ANY abortion. The only thing this law changes is that women now must have the option of seeing it, rather than being denied or cautioned against the opportunity by the abortion provider. Get a grip.

          • Relock77219

            Elise, thank you.  Finally it was said: 

            “Yes, it is meant to dissuade women who might have regrets if they realized they’d killed a living human being”. 

            Couldn’t have said it better myself.  You just proved it is a political issue, not medical.  In a nutshell, the government is requiring a medically unnecessary probe to be inserted into a woman’s vagina before the government will allow her to get her constitutionally protected medical procedure she walked in to get.

            Just when I thought this point would never be made, you came through like a champ.

            Thanks again, Elise.

          • Jenna Schaefer


            it’s about forcing something on women. ”

            Does someone force a woman to get an abortion? No, so therefore, nothing is being forced on a woman. It is part of the procedure.You get the ultrasound – you get your abortion. It’s procedure. If you don’t want to consent to the ultrasound..simple..don’t consent to the abortion!! Many abortion clinics already use transvaginal ultrasounds to locate the fetus women want removed so badly. Many abortions are ultrasound guided. Furthermore, having a transvaginal ultrasound is was less invasive than the tools used in a suction abortion. Transvaginal ultrasounds don’t even hurt..I had several when I was pregnant with my son, just the tip goes in – it isn’t rammed up there. Oh and I agree, saying this is rape is an insult to actual rape victims who VIOLENTLY assaulted by a perpetrator. Why do pro-aborts always the victim card? If I was an actual victim of rape, I would be outraged. They are the victims..not women who want to obtain abortions to kill their unborn baby and then cry when an ultrasound is required as part of the procedure!!

          • Mhoward

            You seem to be implying that a flu shot or an abortion is something that one has a right to.  No one is owed a flu shot, so if the flu shot also comes with open heart surgery, and you don’t want the open heart surgery, you’re shit outta luck.  If it’s not worth it to you to get the flu shot then that’s just too bad, get over it.  If you want an abortion under this bill, and you don’t want an ultrasound, guess you’ll have to carry the baby, won’t you?  Unless you feel like doing it yourself.  I hear that’s comfortable.  Oh, and the government doesn’t require people to get flu shots or have abortions, so no, nothings being forced. lol

          • Johnvikal

            I wish I could “like” this 10 X’s.

    • SarahC

      If the law is passed and she’s agreeing to the aborting then she is there for agreeing to the ultrasound. I had an ultrasound when I had my abortion done. The nurse that did it said to me and I quote “oh you can see the sex.” I asked them to see the ultrasound for myself and they said again I quote “If we show you then you may not go through the procedure, or if you do it’ll haunt you even worse than it already will.” This is why I am against abortion. I think what the nurse said to me was more twisted than the “ultrasound” that they actually FORCED me to have to see how far along I was in order to know how much they needed to charge me. By the way it doesn’t haunt me anymore. I know I’m forgiven by God and He has blessed me with 3 more beautiful healthy children. 

      • Jenna Schaefer

        It’s funny that pro-aborts rage and protest about controlling what goes on in their body and how if they don’t want something in their body they have every right to remove yet..yet the abortion industry doesn’t want them to see what’s in their own body…and they claim they want total rights to what’s going on in their body, but yet they won’t allow women getting abortion to see it for themselves..not funny actually..very sad. 

  • Oedipa

    It’s breaking now that Governor McDonnell will *not* support the legislation as it’s written.

    • Oedipa

       Planned Parenthood probably got to him, too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1376666673 Mark Johnson

    I would like to start by saying that I am as anti-abortion as they come.  If it were up to me all abortions would end tomorrow.  What I don’t understand is why the pro-life movement is picking battles like this over sonograms.  Don’t we want to stop all abortions, not just make it harder to have one?  And all I have been hearing on the news is how pro-life people are at war with women and pro-rape.  I fear this will just move the country towards the pro-abortion camp.  What we should be fighting for is a constitutional amendment and supreme court justices.  I want to be clear I am not attacking anyone at live action (I appreciate all the work they do w/ regards to plan parenthood and bringing people into the pro-life movement), I just don’t understand why we are fighting over sonograms, can’t we just show sonograms of women at the same stage in the pregnancy?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Td-Kelley-Stec/100000294622681 Td Kelley Stec

      Statistics show that the vast majority of women who see a sonogram of their own child in utero are less likely to abort. There is a movement to equip crisis pregnancy centers with ultrasound machines for this reason. It’s hard to deny the truth when you see it with your own eyes and most women who abort are being lied to about what’s happening. The goal really is to change the hearts of women, and so it’s a worthy fight. Hope that helps

      • Oedipa

        That’s factually incorrect. A study in British Colombia (where viewing the ultrasound is not compulsory) came up with these numbers:

        72.6 percent of women chose to see the ultrasound.

        86.3 percent of women who viewed the ultrasound thought it was a positive experience.

        0.0 percent of women changed their mind.

        • Charlotte

          Maybe, but every little bit helps. At least now they understand fully what they are doing, and if they chose to kill their child, they know that it is what they are doing.

  • Harrypotterally

    For someone who has ACTUALLY been sexually assaulted, the very claim is offensive.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1333057409 Sally Wheat Adler

    I think every woman should be forced to see the child she created and now wants dead….It is a long coming time and hope to see the end of abortion in my lifetime..

  • hauermom

    A trans-vag would not be required, they were able to see my baby with standard ultra sound at six weeks. They asked me if we could do a trans-vag to get a clearer picture and better measurements, but nobody would force anyone to. A person would easily be able to see the baby and the heart as more than a ball of cells by a regular ultrasound. It would be enough to satisfy the requirements of this legislation. It’s just more false information that trans-vag is standard for first trimester. It’s always optional. No one will be forced to see their baby, hear their baby, or have anything probe inside them. They will only be given the option to have accurate information, that they so desperately need in such a crucial life ending decision. They should had made that clear in the article, because that is the real issue.

  • Tinagmiller

    I’m a victim of rape, and I’ve also had a transvaginal sonogram. It’s not a pleasant feeling, but it was necessary to find cysts on my ovaries. It felt nothing like being raped. I’m not discrediting those who have been raped and consider abortion. I’m just stating how it felt to me.

  • sam

    Why do we even need the govt to tell us this

  • unaturalgirltt13

    I don’t belive in abortion but I can understand those who are pro-abortion. But I dont think that ultrasounds should be forced upon a woman who wants a abortion. And it shouldnt be considered rape but it should be considered.

    • Rachel Ford

       I agree 110% that ultrasounds should be presented as an option to her; and if she accepts, and has an ultrasound, it is not rape, because she has chosen the procedure.

    • CLHunt

      Getting an ultrasound is required in order to know where the baby is (to ensure the procedure is ‘safe’ and done ‘correctly’) and how many weeks along the baby is (so the clinic knows how much to charge the woman). In most cases, an ultrasound is done but not offered to view. There have been instances where a woman has ASKED to see the ultrasound but refused because it is ‘against their policy’. These laws requiring the clinic to provide the option of viewing the ultra sound are to ensure that a woman actually gets MORE rights and MORE information to make her choice. I think the defenses for abortion clinics are being put up for fear that they will have many women change their mind and keep their child. Also, if you read the article a little more closely you will see that the law will not FORCE the woman to view this ultrasound, rather give her the option. You see the issue here is that abortion providers try to hide away anything that would give a woman the perspective of the person she carries in her womb when she is full of fear, anxiety and confusion. 

  • Jepensedoucjsuis

    The whole point of bills like this are to scare women away from abortion and to follow the Christian agenda. Well its wrong and sick. Also to say well she getting probed with this so its not going to matter if she gets probed with that is a little like saying well
    “He had consensual sex with her using his penis so when he shoved his fist in to her vagina it was not rape because she consented to him using his penis.” Rape is ANY UNWANTED PENETRATION.

  • Gypsy Momma

    Whatever way you look at it, abortion IS a woman’s choice. If you do not like it, do not get one. I have never had an abortion, I have a 14 month old daughter, but I am still pro choice.  Keep your nose out of it if you are not having one. Stop forcing your opinions on women and trying to force them to change their minds. Believe it or not, sometimes it is better for that unborn child to stay that way. Of course everyone screams adoption adoption! Well, if adoption were that wonderful, we would not have thousands of children in orphanages growing up knowing that they are not wanted, and feel no love. Let a woman make her choice, and you make yours. But please, stop trying to force your opinions down others’ throats. 

    • Jenna Schaefer

      Should we just “keep our nose” out of all murder then? Should we keep our noses out of child molestation then? I can probably say we don’t agree with that either. Where’s the line drawn? Is is never better for an unborn child to stay that way – it’s better to be given a chance to live life rather than no chance at all, and most pro-lifers believe it shouldn’t be the woman’s choice because she’s effecting another body that isn’t hers (which she is) and that shouldn’t be her choice! Most of the children if orphanages or foster care are older children which are removed from a home they could no longer stay in..not newborn babies. I don’t know where you’re from but in the US there are thousands of couples waiting to adopt a newborn baby. You don’t have control over anyone else’s heartbeat in the world..why should have control over your unborn child’s? 

      • Nandizodwa

        So a woman unintentionally gets pregnant, doesn’t want the child, but has it anyway.  Then a few years down the line, after the child has been abused and/or neglected CPS steps in and takes the child away – and since it’s no longer an infant it sits in an orphanage unwanted, unloved and possibly abused further.  Sure, that makes sense.

        • Bry

          What the hell are you talking about.   You don’t make any sense.  Assuming the worst now aren’t you. 

          • Nandizodwa

            No, just pointing out that an unwanted child is at much higher risk of these types of situations.  Take off your rose-tinted glasses, it’s not all lollipops and sunshine out here in the real world.

          • Jenna Schaefer

            as I said before, being given a CHANCE at life is better than NO chance. No, not everyone’s life is wonderful, but everyone should be given the chance to live a life. 

          • Nandizodwa

            And what of the unwanted children that are born and kept and abused?  The ones that are beaten, shaken, burned, tortured, maimed, or even killed under the age 5.  Not everyone’s life is wonderful, in fact, some lives are an absolute nightmare – trying to say it might be a “little tough” or “not perfect” is a far cry from the many, many cases of children being severely abused and even killed by their parents, and yes, even adoptive/foster parents.  Talk to some of the few who made it out of nightmare situations like that, several of them will tell you quite blatantly they would rather have been aborted.

          • GiveLifeAChance

            So you’re saying that the majority of mothers entering an
            abortion clinic are likely to “beat, shake, burn, torture, maim, and
            kill” their children if they give birth. Alright, then why stop at
            abortion, a sick person like that should be sterilized. *sarcasm* Do you see
            where you’re ludicrous argument leads??? Most people that go for abortions are
            NOT evil people that would hurt their child – they have just don’t believe that
            their baby is an actual baby yet. This legislation is designed to allow women
            to make a fully INFORMED decision. A woman that sees her baby and has the
            compassion in her heart not to continue with the abortion is NOT going to hurt
            her baby. End of story!

          • Nandizodwa

            Of course not all of them are like that, but the fact is that an unwanted child is at a much higher risk for being abused and/or neglected.  Now you say that a woman that sees her baby and has compassion in her heart will not hurt her baby, but we know that’s not necessarily true all cases.  Women who tired very hard to get pregnant have ended up abusing their much wanted children.  The abuse doesn’t even have to be nightmarishly severe to screw someone up for life.  

          • GiveLifeAChance

            I’m really beginning to feel sorry for you. You just want
            to argue for the sake of arguing. Do you hear yourself??? Fighting so hard so
            that others won’t have a chance at life. You disguise it and try to justify it
            in your own mind, “Oh, I don’t want people to have a bad life”. Just
            put your cards on the table — you don’t care about the lives of others. You
            said it yourself in another post when you said that you don’t care if people
            pull the plug on critically injured patients. I am through dignifying your
            warped comments with a reply.

          • Nandizodwa

            No, I said it was THEIR choice to pull the plug.  And it is.  It’s why everyone should have a healthcare directive so their family members know their wishes.  I care very much about people,but I try to focus on the ones who are ALREADY HERE.You people only give a shit about the fetus, once it’s born you wash your hands of it.

        • Jenna Schaefer

          then adopt the child to a couple that will love and care for it and can’t have a child of their own. 

        • GiveLifeAChance

          So you think that it is better to kill someone because they MIGHT have a rough life?  Hummmmm… if I were an unborn baby I think I would prefer to take my chances, be born, and see for MYSELF how it all turns out!

          • Nandizodwa

            If you were an unborn baby you would have absolutely no conscious awareness of your own existence.

          • disgusted

            Blah blah blah blah Nandizodwa.  Get a clue!!!  They may not be conscious in the same way that you are, but neither are people on life support.  Should we pull the plug on them because their care in inconvenient and expensive??? 

          • Nandizodwa

            People do pull the plug in those situations.  As long as the family is willing to pay for the care/life support I don’t really care, it’s their choice – but my family is aware of my wishes not to be kept “alive” by artificial means for 17 years like Terry Schivo.

          • Djushi

             Actually there was an incredibly interesting TIME article on that … saying that the ‘planning’ part of a fetus’s brain has been detected with exceptional levels of activity going on. Not to mention how the unborn child can recognise his/her mother’s voice, which I am sure everyone knows …

          • thatguy

             Nandizodwa, I am getting tired of your arguments. Not only are they flawed, but it sounds like all you’re trying to do is to justify some actions for yourself; which is selfish and inconsiderate. People asleep are unaware of their existence. Do we put them to death? Oh, by the way, you were an unborn baby at some point too. Are you glad you were brought into this world? Or do you wish that your mother had made the decision of getting rid of you because you were going to be a burden and troublesome. Because face it, any baby is troublesome in the early stages of life, they puke, they poop, they cry and they are selfish little things. Just because something is dis-likable doesn’t mean we can simply throw it away with no moral dilemma. I suggest you seriously research the facts of abortion and stop trying to justify yourself, and conform yourself with truth. btw, many scientific communities have reached the conclusion that human life begins with conception… And then they agree with abortion anyway. Murder. 

          • Nandizodwa

            Tired of my arguments?  Don’t read them, no one is forcing you to.  Yes, we do put to death people who are unaware of their existence – people in a coma have the plug pulled to end their existence unless the family wants/can afford to keep them on life support indefinitely.  Sure, I was once an unborn baby and my mom had me so I am here, it is what it is, that’s all.  If she had aborted me, I would never even know.  In America unborn babies do not have the status of personhood, so legally they are not recognized as citizens/people.  End of subject.  If murder is murder, then why is the drunk who killed my brother serving less than 6 years prison time?  He was  innocent and she took selfishly took his life by driving drunk.  Look up the legal definition of murder/homicide, you learn the truth.

      • Doxie_mama06

         AMEN TO THAT Jenna… couldn’t have said it better myself…

    • Jenni_do

      I am also pro choice…  I believe that I woman should have all information possible in order to make a decision as important as abortion.  As a pro choicer I would like to make it clear to every one that YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE.  Please make it befor conception.  because after you have concieved a baby- that choice has already been made.

      • Doxie_mama06

         so true… once you have conceived the choice has already been made, and you have a living being within your body, so do the right thing, and murder is never the right thing…

    • Chrisstwister

      Neutrality only helps the opposer, never the victim!

    • Dknisley82

      those children in orphanages come from dumb people who give up a chid not a newborn. Anyone who wants to give up a newborn baby, I garentee it goes straight to a family! There r ppl out there on a waitin list for 10 years to get their hands on a newborn. The prob comes from the adoption agencies who have way to much criteria for new parents to qualify!

      • Nandizodwa

        Yeah, ’cause crack babies or fetal alcohol syndrome babies are so high in demand.  

        • Bry

           You are fucking stupid. 

          • Nandizodwa

            You don’t believe this happens?  Then you’re the one who is stupid.

          • Jenna Schaefer

            Again – making the unborn pay for the sins of the mother. 

          • Nandizodwa

            Hmmm, not really any different than the Christian God making every human being pay for the sins of Adam and Eve.  So let God it sort it out in the end.

          • thatguy

             Yo. Adam and Eve knew exactly what they were doing. God kicked them out of the garden so that evil could not be immortal, it was merciful. If evil was allowed to live, then all would be lost. Don’t judge something you don’t really know much about. Get some catechism please, I’m not trying to be rude, just not beating around the bush.

          • Nandizodwa

            What does Adam and Eve knowing what they were doing have to do with this?  Obviously I know more about it than you do.  Original sin?  We all pay for the sin committed by Adam and Eve.  Furthermore, you are basically saying that God intentionally set Adam and Eve up to fail so he could punish them.  lol.

          • Djushi

             Okay. This is my understanding of this issue.
            God created people because he wasnted friends. You can’t be friends with a puppet. He gave us *free will*. Adam and Eve abused that gift, and ‘freely’ sinned. God is not only love. He is also justice. He punishes sin, and he punished Adam and Eve. Because of their sin, all human beings are conceived with a sin-prone nature. Neither a fetus nor a baby can sin, but as soon as we are old enough to be capable of sin, we all do it. Thus we pay for our *own* sins. Adam just introduced it to us all, and passed on his sinful legacy. God did not cause anyone to sin. He just gave us free will. And we freely use our will to sin.
            It gets a bit complicated. You’ve got Calvin and that other bloke, I can’t remember how to spell his name. But how to do you see the above? BTW this column is getting very narrow. If you start a new post below and write my name in capitals I’ll see it and reply. :)

          • Nandizodwa

            DJUSHI No, look up “original sin” – babies are born with originalsin, the sin of Adam and Eve – it’s why they baptisebabies.Not sure what you mean by “how do you see the above?”  I dont’ actually beleivein god, but I was raised Christian.

          • Djushi

            Hi Nandizodwa, this is in reply to to your latest post, but the column was so narrow it wouldn’t let me reply. You said:

            DJUSHI No, look up “original sin” – babies are born with originalsin, the sin of Adam and Eve – it’s why they baptisebabies.Not sure what you mean by “how do you see the above?” I dont’ actually beleivein god, but I was raised Christian.

            I know some groups of Christians, and some people who call themselves Christians but actually aren’t, do baptise babies. But that is not taught in the Bible. What is taught is that when someone believes, they are to be baptised. A baby cannot believe! Thus a baby should not be baptised. Babies are born ‘with original sin’ only if that is interpreted as the natural inclination to sin. They are not born being guilty of eating the fruit in the garden. That was the original sin – disobeying God. In a way, we replicate that sin, because we also disobey God. But until we are capable of disobeying, we cannot be guilty of it. At 7 years old, I was a believer. The pastor at the church we were part of at the time wouldn’t baptise me though. Why? Because although he recognised that I truly believed, he didn’t feel up to baptising me and then defending himself against all the other parents who would get mad at him for not baptising their children, whom he could not justify baptising. I was baptised as a teen, by my father, in the sea. Never as a baby. Have you heard of the Anabaptists? They were hounded to death for their beliefs, that people should be baptised after a confession of faith.

            Yes, some Christians have wonky theology that can be picked apart! But just because one thing that someone believes is wrong, doesn’t mean that everything they believe must therefore be wrong. The truth is the truth, no matter who believes it and who doesn’t.

            My question ‘what do you make of the above’ was an invitation for you to try and pick holes in my beliefs, basically. I want as many people as possible to go over my beliefs as ruthlessly as possible in order to discover whether what I believe will stand up to it. Only the truth will stand up against that. The only faultless worldviews are totally right and totally wrong. Totally wrong comes down to ‘Evil is right’. Total right comes down to … well, you tell me!

            If you want to talk with wider margins, you’re welcome, again, to start a whole new thread with my name in capitals. I didn’t mean you have to write my name in capitals in the post following mine! Just if you want to start a new thread, continuing what we’re discussing atm :)

        • Doxie_mama06

           there are people out there that don’t care what the issue is, they just want a baby to love… yes those babies come with their share of problems, but if a family takes on that type of child, it is because they are willing to love them unconditionally and will do whatever it takes…

          • Nandizodwa

            Unfortunately, there are nowhere near enough people willing to take on those cases.  

          • thatguy

             So.. You’re saying that if a kids gonna have a tough life: kill it before it has the chance to live it with people who love him/her, despite opposition. That makes sense.

    • LifeIsFromGod

      So, Gypsy Momma, if a sicko wants to kill your 14 month old daughter, is it wrong for me to say “Well, I’ve never killed a baby but it’s not MY business to oppose the murderer.”  It wasn’t long ago that your little one was “not a baby” in your womb, in spite of the FACT that her heart was beating at 18 days.

    • Doxie_mama06

       well it may be a choice, because that is what society has made it, but any way you look at it, it is murder, so therefore I don’t see why it should be ok… Murder is wrong in the laws eyes, and also in God’s eyes, so why is it ok for women to murder their babies…and so many women use abortion as a form of birth control, and you don’t think that is wrong… wow… and you are a mother…I too have never had an abortion, and would never even consider it… I have never understood abortion in the first place as to how a women could do such a thing, and then I had a miscarriage, and I understand it even less now… I know how much it killed me to loose that child I was carrying… even though he was unplanned and unexpected, it still killed me… I just don’t understand how women can willingly go and allow their babies to be murdered like that… just makes no sense to me at all….

  • Guinneth

    I do not think the abortion debate is nearly so simple as both sides try to make it; however, as someone who has had to have unexpected transvaginal ultrasounds early in pregnancy, I do fully understand how someone can liken them to rape. Even though two out of three of my ultrasounds were necessary and ultimately saved my life twice with the information they provided, they were extremely traumatic. The one that was unnecessary may have further deteriorated and triggered the spontaneous miscarriage that followed. So let’s not be so egotistical to think that a simple medical procedure is only that. “Simple” medical procedures have long-term mental and physical consequences especially if they involve any sort of intrusion into the body.

    • Djushi

       Thanks heaps for your input! We need some first-hand info in this debate atm :) Sorry about your miscarriage though … :( and the circumstances around it :(

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anne-Marie-Overton/100000683081666 Anne-Marie Overton

    2 hours before the abortion……how about 24-48 to let it sink in. 

  • Believerinyeshua

    Guess what? They should just change the requirement—before getting an abortion, a woman should be required to get an *external* ultrasound… transvaginal no longer an issue…and know what else? The bill never required a transvaginal ultrasound either. Of course this change in the bill won’t satisfy those who
    are against the ultrasounds….why? Because they don’t want to acknowledge that an unborn baby is just a very small baby who has a right to life and no other person has a right to kill. To have sex is a choice…if a woman is opposed to having a baby then she should not have sex. (And don’t bring up the rape justification which is a very tiny percentage of abortions and can be discussed separately because it is not the main issue here anyway)

    • Nandizodwa

      There are plenty of people in this world that do not want to have/raise children – none of them should be allowed to have sex their entire lives because birth control isn’t 100% effective?  You’re living in a fantasy world.  Sex is for procreation, but it is also for pleasure.

      • thatguy

         I would like to think that people could have some self control for about a week (or around there) every month. Natural family planning. 100% effective, no sex = no kids.

        • Nandizodwa

          Natural family planning is NOT 100% effective.  A woman is capable of ovulating out of her cycle for many reasons, including arousal.  

          • thatguy

            It is 100% effective in the concept, as for reality, well, there are biological conditions that can set up a period outside of the normal cycle. But even so, there is the concept of self control and awareness of bodily conditions that are much more effective. In the end, the fact remains. no sex = no kids. And if you’re having sex, well, sex makes kids. You should know that, it is a biological fact. So why are people so surprised when all of a sudden there is a child in the womb? Sex for pleasure is a little gross don’t you think? Sex is a wonderful opportunity to give yourself to another person fully, and is best in a context of genuine love for the other person. Otherwise, sex becomes like a tool and our bodies have no real purpose.

          • 12angry_men

            Sex for pleasure is gross? I know many married couples, with children too mind you, that continue to have sex because it is pleasurable. They (maybe not all) love each other yes, but when you have sex pleasure is just one of the feelings that goes along with it. And that feeling just happens to be a reason why many people, including married couples have had and continue to have sex. 

          • Nandizodwa

            So you basically just agreed that natural family planning is not 100% effective – which means even if you take all those precautions and have sex at the “right time” you could still get pregnant.  Abstinence is 100% effective, yes, but like I said before there are many people out there who do not ever want to have children, you’re seriously going to tell them they can never in their life have sex?  Even if they get married?  Sex for pleasure is gross?  You mean to tell me you have never experienced pleasure while having sex?!?  You’re doing it wrong.

  • Chelsie

    Unfortunately such a complex issue, killing innocent lives in the name of a woman’s right to choose. Here we are, raising a woman’s liberty above an unborn child’s right to life. Without life you have no other unalienable rights. Here is a statistic, 99% of women who want to abort then hear the heartbeat and see their child change their minds. If having sonograms can save a child’s life is that not what America should do? Are we not supposed to go to all lengths to save humanity?!

    • 12angry_men

      Wait a minute, hold the phone. Where did you get that statistic? I would very much like to see it. 

      • Oedipa

        Don’t hold your breath; it’s patently false. There’s a British Columbia study that found that not one view of an ultrasound changed the patient’s decision-making.

        Chelsie, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. I think you’re engaged in ideological wishful thinking.

  • Concerned.

    I agree with this article. There should be an OPTION for an ultrasound before each and every abortion procedure. Why? Well, because first off it gives some context for what the act of abortion is: the taking of a human life.

    Now, some people are thinking “Oh another anti-abortion comment. He’s gonna go on about how abortion is wrong now.”

    Only half right. I am actually pro-life, I believe in the preservation and upbringing of human life from conception until natural death, the moment the sperm joins the egg to the moment of death by old age or accidental means (can’t really help that one). I am not just ‘anti-abortion’. I am for something rather than against something. Now, for the morality of abortion I would like to address a few commonly used responses to the matter:
    1). It’s just a fetus, it’s not alive or anything. Not a real person yet.
    fetus definition: An unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception. Seems pretty alive to me, just because there is an inch or two thick wall between a growing human and the outside world doesn’t really seem to be a real determining factor. My younger brother is in the room beside me and there is a wall and a door separating us, and he is still growing/developing. Is he alive? Is he a real person? I hope you would say yes haha. As for the question of ‘real personage’. What qualifies a real person? Consciousness? Well, if that’s the case, sleeping people are doomed. A heart beat? There are people today without hearts living with the support of machines. Whoops. I think they’re real people. Overall, the argument that a fetus (lets call it a baby okay?) is not a person doesn’t hold water, If you’re thinking that just because it’s small it’s not real…. Well…. That’s not really logical.

    2). What about rape? The woman shouldn’t have to go through the drama of carrying the rapist’s child.
    – If the baby inside the womb wasn’t a person, just a blob of tissue, like a tumor, no soul, nothing at all that is human or living in that sense, this argument would hold ground. However, since the baby in the womb is a person, it’s wrong to kill it in any situation. Also, does doing a wrong to a wrong make a right? If a man were to slap a woman, and then the woman turns around and slaps his innocent kid, would this be right? If a man raped a woman, would the woman be justified in killing his kid? No, the two are unrelated. It’s a fallacy in logic to assume that this makes sense. ALSO, IT’S NOT ONLY THE RAPIST’S BABY INSIDE THE WOMAN, IT’S HER’S AS WELL. It’s her baby too. Even if forced upon her, it is her kid, biological and logically. Also, it is a fact that women have much more mental health problems with abortion than carrying a child. This argument doesn’t really make sense, look at it with a mind seeking truth and you’ll see.

    3). It’s a woman’s choice.
    – Well, that’s emasculating for men. We would all like to say that we do have part in this, even as simple as no sperm no baby; crude as that may appear it is true… Also, we have been in the womb before and so I think this does put us on some equal ground with women in the matter. I’d like to think that through my nine month stay in my mothers womb that I had some rights on the matter. The separation of a man’s choice and a woman’s choice in this matter is an example of classic sexism. What about the child’s choice eh? Where does this come into play? I’m pretty sure the child would want to live, for it is better to live than to die wouldn’t ya say?

    Overall, abortion is really quite a violation of human rights and I’m sick to death of people trying to justify it according to personal WANTS instead of simple, logical, rational means. There hasn’t been an argument yet for abortion that is founded on a sound principle or premise for that matter. A little warning, in a country that allows abortion, watch out when you’ve become a senior.. Because when the killing of the unborn is justified, euthanasia is soon to follow. I hope everyone has a nice day.

  • Rebekah

    OMG!!! REALLY???!!!

  • Djushi

    Okay, I’ve written a few comments below, but I think it’s my turn to start my own thread :)
    Firstly, after pondering this for a few days, I don’t know whether or not I support this law. (Cheers, please!)
    This is what I would propose (as an amendment to this law):

    A woman must be given an ultrasound however-many hours before an abortion.
    She can opt to have whatever sort of ultrasound she likes. If she is happy with a trans-vaginal ultrasound, and the fetus is an appropriate age, the doctor does that. If she refuses a trans-vaginal ultraound and the anal one (I’m not too well versed on how this works, but sounds uncomfortable and possibly humiliating to me), the doctor does a different one. … not sure what (non-invasive) options are available, but the one in the picture looks okay :).
    If the fetus is under a certain age, the woman is also shown a basic picture of a fetus at the age of the fetus she is planning to abort.
    The father of the child is given the option to see the picture(s)/ultrasound. The mother is required to ‘be shown’ them. If she wants, she can hold her hand in front of her face or close her eyes or whatever. But they must ‘be shown’ to her, with a minimal time period. The jury can go out on how long that should be.

    There. How does that sound, everyone?

    The Djushi is open for (to) comment!

    • Djushi

       Hi RELOCK, re-starting converstion here …

      “Hey Djushi, I don’t check this site often, hence the delay.  You’re
      officially the first person ever to answer this question.  So thanks for
      that.  Since you’re not a US citizen it’s hard to give my remarks and
      have you relate.  I’ll hit a few:
      15 years prison for the dr., 8 for
      the woman.  Implies the dr. is more guilty than than the person who
      willingly walked in seeking the procedure.  That’s backwards.  The
      police will somehow get tipped off about an alleged abortion, get
      addresses of dr. and patient, cuff them at home or at work, read miranda
      rights, book, fingerprint, take in front of a judge where they will
      plead guilty or not… and on and on.   Many states in the US are
      releasing prisoners because of overcrowding.  So more prisons must go in
      the budget, which means raising taxes or go further into debt… etc.
       Outlawing an industry makes gov’t. bigger to enforce the new laws…I
      think you get my point.  Questions?”

      That’s okay, I like answering questions … and I also like asking them!

      Mmm, yes, normally I think that would be right, for the dr to be penalised more than the woman. S/he probably has more knowledge about what s/he is actually doing, s/he is the one profitting (money-wise), and most likely in a more ‘rational’, for want of (or because I can’t remember the) better word, state of mind at the time. The woman willingly walking in, seeking the procedure, but probably under duress, whether financial, relationship-wise, emotional, where the abortionist is just plain ‘making money’ from murder. If I remember rightly, a hired killer gets a heavier sentence than a common killer …? I’m not sure what your statement about the police is meant to mean, unless just to re-enforce the next few sentences. Which raise a valid (but combatable) point.

      So the jails in the US are over-crowded? Weeeelllll, how about we just make, say, theft! – a legal act. I mean, not alllll that many people actually die from being robbed. So it’s a less important crime than murder, or rape, or child molesting. But what would happen if theft were legalised? Suddenly robberies would be occuring EVERYWHERE. Anyone can get away with it! Just like with abortion. I don’t want abortion criminalised to put people in jail. I want it criminalised to stop it. And I know, I truly know, that abortion will continue whether legal or not. Just like theft, murder etc. We will not be rid of it (till, but I guess you don’t believe this, Jesus comes back!). But once outlawed, abortion numbers will drop drastically. I mean really, really drastically. We’ll have a mini ‘baby boomer’ time, (this is my little theory, feel free to critisise), cause I mean, mindsets don’t change overnight, but soon after, both abortions and ‘unwanted’ pregnancy numbers will drop. A guy will go up to his girl friend and say ‘Let’s do it!’ and she’ll say ‘Mary did it with Jim and got pregnant despite the pill. We’re using a condom.’ Or, better yet, ‘Mary did it with Jim and got pregnant. She’s dropped out of college. I’m not doing it.’ Imagine that! Of course, she might say ‘Mary did it with Jim and got pregnant. She got Mrs Jones to give her an abortion in the bathroom. Mary’s still recovering/Mary’s in hospital.’ But at least she won’t say ‘Mary did with with Jim, Kate did it with Joe, Helen did it with Mark and Della did it with Craig, they all went to Planned Parenthood and had a cheap abortion. Let’s do it!’

      That still doesn’t fix your overcrowded jail system. But I think you get my point, that there won’t be *that* many people doing time for abortions. Not everyone who gets abortions now will go to jail. Not everyone having unprotected sex with their boy/girlfriend will be continuing that either! I reckon book sales on ‘Natural Family Planning’ will go up. (Not suggesting that’s a baby-proof way to go, btw. It’s just a whole lot better than nothing.) Anyway. If abortion is outlawed, you’ll have all those funds the governments had been donating to establish training programmes and get-kids-off-the-streets things (a bit tongue-in-cheek here). But seriously, overcrowded jails means work on your budget, your high-school materials, your community services sector. It doesn’t mean you should legalise murder.

      Thoughts?

      • Djushi

        Wow that really is long. But I quoted on of your whole posts there as well, so not all of it’s mine. : )

      • Relock77219

        Relock, I’m not good and mad. I can understand why you said what you did (at least I think I can). I think you just missed the point of my previous post – I asked if you were ready to debate WHY a fetus is not a person, because, as I said, I’m ready to debate it any day of the week.
        It’s not the blog I’m working for right now. It’s you, and through you the human lives you can impact.
        I’m sorry if it sounded like I was brushing aside what you said. I want to do the hard work. I can’t just rush off though. I’m doing a course (actually, more than one) to be prepared to rush off when the time comes. And I’m practicing my debating skills.
        So, a fetus does not have rights because a woman does have rights? Is that your argument? What exactly is your argument? Rachel’s is that a fetus is not a person, to use her terminology, a fetus is just a genetic blueprint. I’ve debated her for a while on that one, but our discussion ended on one of my questions that she didn’t answer. Someone close to me who is pro-abortion is that because, while he says a fetus is a person, it’s in his/her best interests to be killed because it’s better than being beaten to death by abusive parents, etc.. and I was in the process of arguing it through with him when he said he’d rather not debate with me.
        I say a fetus is a person. He has his own gender, DNA, and life, and is a human. Not part of the mother. Not dead. Not a parasite (one of the most frustrating arguments I’ve ever heard)!
        So, the point of this post is to say: When and why is the killing of a fetus okay?

        • Djushi

           Huh? That’s what I wrote in reply to you … ?

        • Ducats69376

          I realize this is THE question.  And it’s a good question.  But how could I possibly answer it?  How could you for that matter?  It’s a question that must be posed to and answered by each and every pregnant woman considering an abortion.  And every woman is different and every woman will have a different answer.   There are thousands to millions of circumstances.  I would never presume to know what is going on in a particular pregnant woman’s head, and neither should you, the gov’t., or anyone for that matter.  Why are you interested in the sex-slave industry?  Or this site?  I don’t know.  It’s your brain, it’s your life.  I can’t begin to understand you.  So you see, it’s an impossible question to answer.  If you want answers ask this question of women considering abortions.  Of course you will try to talk them out of it and make them feel horrible about their decision, but hey, you got your answers.  Then what good have you done?  You’ve made an emotional, pregnant woman feel guilty and bad about herself.  Not a very moral thing to do if you ask me.

          Like I said before, the pregnant woman is a person, the zygote she carries is not.  You may think it is but it’s not.  A woman could fall over a chair during gestation and her zygote could die.  She could be severely depressed and her zygote could die.  A separate person would not die.  A separate person could watch her fall over the chair.  A zygote during gestation is not a person until birth.  And what happens during gestation is dictated by the woman carrying the zygote.  Every pregnant animal on earth has total control over the zygote they carry.  Humans are no different, Bible or no Bible.

          So that’s the answer to your question.  The answer is there are millions of answers.  

          • Djushi

             Ducats, the post you replied to is actually my words, I’m not sure why Relock re-posted them there. But anyway, I will happily reply to you.

            I guess the question I was asking requested guidelines. Because you see, some people tout abortion as the lesser of two evils. Some tout it as no evil at all.

            IF the fetus/zygote/embroyo is a person, it is always an evil to kill him or her – permissible evil only to literally save the life of another person.

            IF the fetus/embroyo/zygote is not a person, it is no evil to kill him/her, though it may be evil to cause him or her unneccesary pain, and it may be evil for someone to kill him/her solely because he/she is of worth to another person, just as it is an evil to kill someone’s pet mouse but no evil to kill a mouse that runs loose in your house and steals your cheese.

            You say the unborn are not persons. At birth they aquire personhood. I say the unborn are persons. They aquire personhood at conception.

            Therefore, I say, no matter what the state of the mother, she may not kill her unborn child. With one exception: to literally, and physically, save her life.

            Your fell-over-a-chair-and-sire argument is not really much of an argument. A woman carrying a newborn child could fall over a chair and the newborn could die. A blind person could not watch her fall over the chair. The pregnant woman may have legal rights over the fetus/zygote she carries, but according to science she does not – the fetus/zygote can actually affect his/her mother’s body, using instructions carried in his/her own body, unique from the mother’s. Just because the mother’s bodily conditions affect the unborn’s body so dramatically, does not mean the unborn does not have the right to life. You must argue that the unborn is not a person. That is what I am ready to debate.

            Regardless of my emotional, mental and health state, I am not allowed to kill my little sister, nor drive when intoxicated, nor steal someone else’s belongings. My various states are only ‘mitigating circumstances’ which may demand consideration in my court case. They do not give me leave to do that which is wrong. If taking someone else’s belongings were not wrong, I could do that no matter what problems I may have in my life. If it is wrong, I can not do it, not matter what may be going on in my life.

            So, what is your real argument as to why a fetus/zygote is not a person?

          • Djushi

            Edit – not ‘fell-over-a-chair-and-sire’! Supposed to be ‘fell-over-a-chair-and-died’.

          • Ducats69376

            This
            is the last time I’ll say this: A baby who is born is not an
            arbitrary cut off point. This is the change from gestation, when the
            fetus is kept alive by the mother completely, to the stage of being
            able to live outside of the mother on its own. The umbilical cord is
            cut, it breathes its own air and eats its own food. It is officially
            a baby. Its civil rights have now begun. Its mother can now leave
            the country if she chooses, the baby can now live independent of her.
            That’s not arbitrary, but if you choose to believe it is, go right
            ahead. Do not ask about ‘person’ again; I’ll ignore it.

            Glad
            you and your dad enjoyed yourselves. It doesn’t really change the
            point I was making, however. It’s easy to consciously laugh at
            things. But what I’m really talking about is the subconscious. You
            may feel everything is fine, but deep down something else may be
            going on.

            Was
            your dad laughing at the notion of his daughter willing to die so her
            fetus could live? Or how about the fact that she actively wants her
            government to take rights away from her. Is this a source of comedy
            for him? Or does he, rather than acknowledge these difficult
            concepts, distract himself by laughing at the easy stuff, like
            appearance? Father and daughter commiserating over the easy stuff so
            as to avoid the difficult.

            If
            I had a daughter and I knew she wanted to give up some of her rights,
            I would not laugh. I would try to arrange a conversation between her
            and an Afghan or Iranian girl of similar age. Who grew up in those
            countries. I would then want my daughter to explain to these girls
            that having the government take away some of their rights is in their
            best interest. To tell these girls who come from a country where
            they are treated as second class citizens that they should
            voluntarily give up, even actively fight to remove, their rights. I
            want my daughter, a girl from a free country, to see this concept
            through the eyes of girls who have been oppressed by
            religion-controlled governments their whole life. Would your father
            do this for you? A person with your best interest at heart would.

            You
            said you’re not an incessant arguer but you are an incessant debater.
            These words mean the same; check a thesaurus if you doubt this.
            You’ve acknowledged I’m right on this point.

            I
            read before you used to argue with Rachel on this message board. And
            you say she stopped responding because she couldn’t answer your
            ‘person’ question. My theory is she could answer it but she knew you
            would do what you’re doing: insisting the world live under your
            definition. Because your definition is the right one and everyone
            else is wrong. But you’re not arrogant. In short, you chased her
            away.

            Rachel
            has a definition, I have a definition, everyone has a definition.
            The difference between everyone else and the pro-life movement is
            everyone else does not care who agrees or disagrees with their
            definition. Who are we to force our definition on you? But the
            pro-life movement says “Our definition is the only right one. The
            others are wrong. But we’re not arrogant, we don’t want big
            government or any of that. We just want the world to be bound by our
            definition of a person, and if you don’t follow it, you will be
            punished by the government”. Afghanistan and Iran could not have
            said it better.

            Please,
            have your father read this so he can pick out the easy parts and
            laugh defensively. I want to make his day.

          • Djushi

             I don’t know how to start …

            My dad and I were laughing at the idea of me being unhappy with the way I look. With me being obese, or covered in acne, or friendless, etc. – because I’m none of those things.

            I take issue with ‘argue’ being the same term as ‘debate’. Similar, but not the same. I think of ‘argue’ as being, well, angrily trying to defeat the other party’s stance, whereas ‘debate’ means more to be one of the parties comparing stances and trying to figure out why there are differences and resolve them. Out of an argument comes a winner and a loser. Out of a debate (at truly good one) comes the truth, and two parties who hopefully believe it.
            Btw a thesaurus does not just list terms that mean the same, more like similar. It would be ridiculous if all those words meant exactly the same thing, or had the same connotations and cultural heritage and meaning.

            I get what you’re saying about your definition of person. There definately is a cut off time when a human is born. Otherwise ‘birth’ would be a philosophical concept, instead of a happening at a particular point in time. However, being independant of someone (or something) should not make you a person. When I am connected up to a life-support machine, and it does everything for me, including breathing, am I part of the machine? Does my personhood leave me until I’m unhooked? The fact that my mother can leave the country has nothing to do with my personhood. Babies who are born connected at the head cannot live independantly of each other, nevertheless they are individual people.

            As for my ‘rights’, that all means nothing if abortion truly is killing an innocent person. That’s the question. I don’t have the right to kill my brother. If I did, I would campaign to have it removed – not because I’m likely to, but because other people might kill their brothers. But I would campaign to keep the right to go swimming at the beach in front of whoever cares to be there, or the right to go interstate, or the right to eat pizza if I so desire.

            As I said before, if you want to call me arrogant, go ahead. Do you call Nelson Mandela arrogant for his idealism? He wanted the world to obey his definitions. Arrogant sod! He reckoned his definition was the right one, and campaigned for others to believe it.

            I believe that there is a right and a wrong. (I’m an idealist.)

            Rachal couldn’t answer my person question because I was questioning her definition, and proving that it was wrong. No offence to Rachel – I like her, and she’s polite and intelligent. But just as I dig away at your definition, so I dug away at hers. I wasn’t proving that she should live under my definition. That’s philosophy. I was proving that my definition is the right one. And because she is a logical person, she knew that is something is true, you ought to believe it, and thus live by it. Which is a very scary thing. But I wasn’t saying that (at least, I don’t think I was, from memory) I merely debated away, showing that what I believe is right. And you debate away, showing that what you believe it right. Since both *cannot* be right, we must choose one or the other. It cannot be true that a human is always a person, and at the same time be true that a human is only sometimes a person. People can believe one or the other, but only one is true.

            I must go. Talk later :)

          • Ducats69376

            I made my definition very clear and that I wouldn’t talk about it again.  If you don’t understand it then you are thick.  Are you thick?  For the tenth time, Mandela helped living people whose rights were being violated.  He never at any time, as you advocate, put a gun to a pregnant girl’s head and forced her to give birth under threat of prosecution.  See the difference?  I know it’s subtle, but if you look real hard…

            Argue =debate.  Sorry to break that to you.  You argued the same point until Rachel couldn’t take it, and you’re doing the same here.  You conveniently ignore the points you have no answer to and harp on this one.  Because that’s all you have.

            But that’s not enough.  Sorry.

          • Djushi

             Whew. I was not conveniently ignoring your ‘other points’. It was very late at night and my mother was trying to drag me away from the computer. And then I had to drive to study, an hour away.

            Okay, if you want say argue=debate, I’ll surrender that to you. I disagree, but for the purpose of discussion I’ll do it your way. I aruged the one point over and over because it is the only important point! If it’s wrong, it should be outlawed. The only reason killing a creature, humanely and with no detrimental effects to society/people, is if the creature is a person. Thus everything hinges on whether or not the unborn human is a person.

            I may be thick. Depends which angle you look at me from.

            I WAS NOT using Mandela as an anti-abortion argument. I was using him to show that is something is wrong, we should impose a ban on that wrong being committed. Perfectly reasonable of me. Defending my ‘arrogance’ in ‘demanding’ that the world ‘live under my definition’ if it is DEMONSTRABLY THE CORRECT DEFINITON. In order to prove that mine is the correct definition, I am ‘arguing’ with you. But you would not discuss why your definition is the correct one and mine is not. You simply said that yours is. I poke holes in yours. You’re supposed to patch them up, or else admit you were wrong. Are you capably of being wrong? Are you capable of admitting you are wrong? I am capable of both. However you have given me no reason why my definition is wrong.

            Your definition of what a human being needs to be a person is wrong because it relies on one or more of these non-essential criterion and nothing else:

            *Location
            *Ablities
            *Age
            *Visibility
            *Emotions of others
            *Physical connectedness or lack thereof

            Each of these is demonstrably non-essential.

            Regarding your ‘other questions’, that’s about how I’d feel being investigated for the murder of my unborn offspring, right? I’m sorry, in that case I was a bit dull. To only think of the possibility of using drugs was not terribly smart. It was late. Sorry.
            But again, it is late now and my mum is dragging me to bed. I have study tomorrow. You’ve posed a difficult question, though, I will say that – and I don’t think it has much of an answer. Just as the investigations into SIDS does not have much of an answer. But I am not a medical expert. I don’t know what evidence may or may not be present. I do know that there are a lot of difficult cases that go to court, though, and while not all are resolved appropriately, it is better than not tackling them at all.

            I must go, but I will get back to you on that one.

            Do you understand why I used Mandela, and why I am so attached to the personhood question?

          • Ducats69376

            Almost forgot, since you love bringing up Mandela so much:

            “The 1996 Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act was signed into law by South African president Nelson Mandela in February of 1997 and effectively legalized abortion for women in the country. Under the act, a woman may request an abortion for any reason during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and the pregnancy may be terminated between weeks 13 and 20 of gestation if continuing it is deemed by her doctor to be harmful to her emotional or physical well-being”.

            Wanted: Nelson Mandela.  AKA: “Nelson the butcher”.  
            So, we agree that this is yet another tool in your arguing arsenal that has flown out the window? 

          • Djushi

             Oh, didn’t see this yesterday. No, Nelson Mandela supporting abortion does not eliminate him from my useful list. I was not using him to argue against abortion. I was using him to show that we have the right to champion our beliefs. I don’t want to prevent people from championing their pro-abortion/pro-choice beliefs! Not at all! ‘I disagree with almost everything you say, but will defend to the last your right to say it’. That doesn’t mean ‘I disagree with almost everything you do, but will defend to the last your right to do it’. If you want to argue that abortion is right, or that gay marriage is right, or that having a police force is right, or that segregation is right, or that helping others is right, that’s fine by me. You have the right to free speech, so long as your free speech injures no other person injustly (defamation, libel, slander).
            My favourite person to bring up is William Wilberforce, but I keep forgetting his last name, whereas I have Mandela’s down pat.

          • Ducats69376

            You don’t agree that you’re actively trying to removeyour rights?

          • Djushi

             Again, depends what you define ‘rights’ as.

            If ‘rights’ means ‘the right to (insert any word under the sun)’ then yes! I am actively trying to remove my rights!

            Problem with the above method of defining rights it, I could say I have a right to kill my 8 year old sister. Or, I could say I have a right to never word. Or I have a right to steal. Etc etc etc.

            ‘My right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose’. A person has a right to do all sorts of things – so long as those things do not harm other people, and in the case of a minor, so long as those things do not harm oneself, outside of set perimeters.

            Or, you could argue that a ‘right’ is whatever the highest applicable power says is your right. The US gov’t says abortion is a right, thus it is a right. The German gov’t says killing Jews is a right, thus it is a right. The Chinese gov’t says free speech is not a right, thus it is not a right.

            Is abortion a right? You have argued ‘yes’, because you have said that
            an abortion does not harm a person (other than what limited harm may be
            done to the woman/girl, which is not what we’re discussing). I argue
            ‘no’, because I say that an abortion, in harming a
            fetus/embroyo/zygote/whatever you want to call him, of human nature, is
            harming (in fact killing) a person. You have argued ‘yes’ because the gov’t says it is a right. I argue ‘no’ because I say that governments are not always correct, so that factor ceases to matter, so we fall back on my previous ‘no’, which rests on the basis of the whole question.

            Is or is not an unborn human a ‘person’ with ‘rights’ like any other ‘person’.

          • Djushi

             PS sorry it took me so long to reply, I was down at some Agricultural field days with some equally date-less friends :D

          • Relock77219

            Ducats=Relock.  Sometimes one email does not work.

            Sounds more and more like you are repeating your pastor’s words.  You’ll probably deny this, but it’s pretty obvious.  Your talk of ‘evil’ pretty much makes the case.  Evil is a religious concept and I won’t respond to religious concepts.  This works in a place like Saudi Arabia, not US and Aus.  
            No more religion talk.

            You said a lot of stuff and it’s exhausting.

            Fundamental difference: you favor the fetus over the pregnant woman, and I favor the opposite.  Proof?  If a woman will become sterile by going to term and delivering a baby, you will mandate that she become sterile.  Your words, not mine.  We will never come to an agreement on this.  At least until you get older and live a little more–and stop listening to a pastor.  Then maybe.  But not before.

            Watching a person fall over a chair was a joke to make a point–surprised you didn’t get that.  What are you, 17?

            I’m sure by this time you’ve looked at the Wikipedia definition of ‘fetus’ and ‘zygote’.  These are various stages of embryonic development.  No where does it say ‘person’.  I realize your pastor is making a very compelling case as to why it’s a person, but he’s speaking from religious dogma.  And parishioners, like yourself, eat it up.  No offense.  A Wiccan or Pagan will have a very different definition than your pastor.  And their definition is no better or worse than yours.  Because all religions think they’re correct and all others are wrong.  You would never say a Pagan’s definition is wrong, would you?  Is it okay for them to say you’re wrong?  My personal definition of a person is a Homo sapien that breathes oxygen to live.  AKA a born person.  But I’m sure you won’t like that.

            See how convoluted and ridiculous this all is?  It’s a never ending argument which seems to exist just to give people something to debate.  Impossible to please all.  I could care less who likes or agrees with my definition.  You, on the other hand, demand the world live under your definition.  This is what you’re fighting for.  How arrogant is that?    Is arrogance a sin?  Probably not.  The only solution to this never ending debate is to leave the definition up to the woman carrying the zygote/fetus.  Society functions perfectly when the pregnant woman makes the decision.  But you don’t like that.

            Here’s what shocks me: I can’t get pregnant. You can.  And I am fighting for more rights for you than you want for yourself.  Think about that.  Pretend I’m the gov’t.  Here is what you are telling me: 

            “Excuse me, Mr. Gov’t.  I realize I have rights you have given me.  But I demand you remove those rights.  If I ever try to exercise those rights, I want you to thrust me into the legal system and throw me in jail.  Until then, I will fight vehemently until these rights are gone”.

            You cannot deny this.  this is exactly what you want.

            I answered your question.  Here’s mine:

            You have successfully removed your rights.  You go out on a date, he forces himself on you.  Two weeks later you learn you’re pregnant.  It’s a shock but you’re ready.  You fall over a chair.  You miscarry and bleed.  You’re scared and scream, your neighbor comes to help.  As he helps he becomes suspicious.  Tells the police and medics that he thinks you tried to do a self abortion.  Now you have to defend yourself and prove it was an accident.

            Please answer honestly: is this what you want to go through after a miscarriage?

          • Djushi

            Okay. About this pastor business. I don’t belong to any particular church, and I disagree with the pastor of the church I most regularly attend, on several points. I also have small differences with the elders. That isn’t to say I don’t respect them all. But it is to illustrate that I do not take any modern man’s word as gospel, and I try really hard to understand whatever anyone else tries to feed me. None of this is from ‘my pastor’. I may be only 17, but I’m not (I hope) an idiot, and I don’t just accept anything. And I don’t remember ever hearing him give any kind of personhood case.

            If evil is a religious term, what word do you use to define ‘very very bad and wrong’? That’s how I’m using the word. ‘Wicked’ now means ‘cool’, and I don’t think ‘morally wrong’ is a strong enough term. If you take exception to the word ‘evil’, though, I won’t use it any more.

            I had my parents in tears learning maths because I wouldn’t be satisfied with ‘that’s how it is’. I had to know why, I had to understand.

            That’s what I’m trying to do here. I don’t just want to know what you think. I want to know why you think that. If you don’t know why, then I want to make you find out why. If your reason is rubbish, I want to make you realise that. If you reason is legit and solid, I want to find out why I don’t believe the same.

            No, I do not favour the fetus over the woman. I hold them equal. (Shock horror.) Proof? If a woman’s life is literally endangered by the presence of the fetus, I would not discourage her from killing him/her. That’s because they are of equal worth. Equal damage to persons of equal worth, and I would personally choose for another person that the woman live and the fetus die. (Be pleased with me for that, please.) I would personally choose for myself (I think) that the fetus (my off-spring) live and I die. But I’ve never been in that situation, so I can’t say for sure. (That’s just a personal choice, and that is religion-related. But I can make religion-related decisions for myself.) I can say for sure that I would not kill a fetus if my life were not critically endangered, however.

            You hold the woman above the fetus, so much so that she can kill the fetus for any reason whatsoever at any age, so long as no air exists in the fetus’s lungs. Because you do not consider the fetus to be a person. That’s a logical stance – if not a person, killing is certainly permissable. My case – and this is NOT a religious case, take note I am using no Bible verses and not using the word evil henceforth – is that the fetus IS a person.

            I can hold my breath for 2.5 minutes. Am I a person during the time I am not breathing? (You’re going to get mad at me here for asking a stupid question, I know.)
            There was a young boy who was in ice-cold water for some period of time, so that his body virtually shut down. He did not breath, nor did he have a heartbeat for (I believe it was) 7 hours. His brain did not die due to the special temperature and he was revived. What he not a person during that time?
            There were babies born in a local hospital many years ago. Because of various disabilities they had, they were never slapped into breathing. They never took a breath, and were left in a back room until they died. Were they people who died in that back room, without air in their tiny lungs?

            There is a tribe in the islands, I think it was the Philipines, where a baby is not considered a person until he or she sneezes. At the sneeze it is believed that the spirit enters the body, and the person is ‘become’. Parents who do not want their children carefully take the child and lay him/her in a hole and bury him/her alive – all the while hoping the child will not sneeze. (Society functioned fine with this, btw.)

            There are people scattered over the globe who believe a human becomes a person when fulfilling these definitions:
            Consciousness and the ability to feel pain
            The ability to reason.
            The ability to act in ways that go beyond instinct — to have motives
            and goals.
            The capacity for complex communication.
            Having a sense of self.And until all those requirments are fulfilled, they believe it is okay to kill the human. http://brindedcow.umd.edu/140/warren.html, and the Aussie ethicists. Of course you could drive a truck through the holes in the above. (Society would function fine with it though, btw.)

            There was a man who believed only certain humans were people, regardless of the above considerations. So he ordered the killing of millions of those whom he decreed should not be considered persons. You’ll know I’m talking about Hitler. (Society did not function fine with this. The Jews were really smart and useful to the economy. However, the Jews’ assets became Hitler’s – 1/3 of his war funding came from dead Jews. So society sort of functioned fine with that.)

            Then there is Relock/Ducats, who believes that a human is not a person until that human breathes CO2. And it’s fine to kill a human before that happens.

            Then, finally, there is Djushi, who believes, due to no brainwashing whatsoever, that a human being is always, 100% of the time, a person, and the only time it’s okay to kill one is to preserve the life of another.

            So, what matters to you is the method by which a homo sapiens gets his/her oxygen. You’re right, I do not like that (at all). No offence from me either, but I think it’s ridiculous. Our lungs define our personhood? And if our habitat does not allow for the use of our lungs, we’re not people? A baby ten minutes before birth is no different to a baby ten minutes after birth, except for those molecules of air in her lungs. So you are saying that the use of her lungs makes her a person.

            The fact that I am a woman and you are a man and we’re debating the sides we are proves merely that we are both sincere in what we believe. I think that’s a good thing.

            In your sad date-rape scenario, (as a side note, I don’t date), I will answer honestly.

            No.

            I would not want that to happen to me. I’m being honest. I would not want it.

            I don’t know all the answers. You obviously know that I don’t know all the answers. But, if I had caused an abortion on myself, all the police or whoever would have to do is take a blood test. The abortion drug(s) would show up in that. So, while I might not want it, you’ve got to admit there are other times when a distressed person must be ‘further distressed’ to be sure of justice. It was fairly distressing for the Aussie athlete who was recently found guilty of murdering her young baby. And it would be distressing for a young mother to be investigated for the murder of her own child in the case of SIDS. It’s sad and hard. It’s up to the law enforcers to make it as not-hard as they can. ‘Excuse me Ma’am but we’ll need to take a blood test. Would you come with me, please, to the doctor’s? You’ll be home again shortly, and your family members may come as well.’ Rather than ‘Hey you, baby-killer, git in the car.’

            Sorry that’s so long. But you kind of asked for it. :)

          • Relock77219

            That’s
            way long. I’m exhausted. I think I may have to wrap up my writing
            on this thing—it’s taking too much time and I can’t stand expanding
            all these threads just to get to where I was. I think any questions
            you have for me are answered somewhere in my previous threads. I’ll
            give this one a shot though. Something tells me you won’t talk to me
            after this one—just a warning.

            I’ll
            give you the ‘evil’ thing. I can’t think of a better word either.
            Maybe it’s not religious.

            You
            give a lot of examples from different countries which I’m not going
            to address. These all involve living people and you know my position
            on that.

            I
            put ‘AKA a born person’ after my breathing remark. I thought you
            would get that but I guess not. To clarify, a person is born, no
            longer in the gestation phase of development. They are already
            developed, the cord is cut, thus a person. So you did a lot of
            writing on the breathing thing for nothing. That’s my definition.
            Remember, the only definition that counts is the pregnant woman’s.
            If she agrees with mine, she will consider abortion. If she agrees
            with yours, she will not. Our thoughts about her fetus/zygote are
            completely irrelevant to her life. For you to waste valuable brain
            power on this issue is a shame.

            When
            I spoke of self-abortion I was not speaking about abortion drugs.
            Any woman who took those would be a fool. She’d have to be more
            covert; a blow to the stomach, a long sharp tool, you get the idea.
            I realize this is something you do not want to confront, but it will
            happen if your dream comes true. It’s way easier just to call for
            its outlaw, isn’t it?

            You
            said a couple things in this post that bother me:

            “I
            had my parents in tears learning maths because I wouldn’t be
            satisfied with ‘that’s how it is’. I had to know why, I had to
            understand”.

            This
            tells me a lot. You’re an incessant arguer. You actually argued
            with your parents over something you knew they couldn’t possibly
            answer. Math has been around forever, why would you think your
            parents could shed more light on the subject? Over time this has the
            effect of driving people away.

            “I
            would personally choose for another person that the woman live and
            the fetus die. (Be pleased with me for that, please.) I would
            personally choose for myself (I think) so that the fetus (my
            off-spring) could live and I die. But I’ve never been in that
            situation, so I can’t say for sure”.

            Statements
            like these break my heart. A healthy woman with her whole life ahead
            of her would not say this. This is the statement of a depressed
            person. ‘Life is useless for me, so I’ll let this baby have a shot’
            is what this says. Bleak.

            It
            is, however, easy to take this noble stance because odds are you’ll
            never be in the position. If I said I’ll give you a million dollars
            to have sex with a woman, you can easily say no. Even if you would.

            “I
            don’t date”.

            Okay,
            fine. There are a lot of reasons for this, but I’m going to give you
            my take. Based on everything I know about you, I will give you my
            profile (prepare to get defensive).

            You
            don’t date because of religion, true, but the main reason is you are
            not happy with how you look. Overweight, complexion, something like
            that. You have few close friends. You regularly push people away by
            your constant arguing, but in your mind, they leave because of how
            you look. So you keep arguing more and more, and when more people
            leave, you justify it by blaming your appearance. Instead of
            submerging yourself online with something less controversial on which
            you can have an impact, you focus on an issue that has long been
            decided. And desperately try to make your case to more and more
            people about when a person begins. An unwinnable argument that sees
            more and more people walking away, shaking their heads.

            I’m
            sure you’ll say I’m dead wrong and argue, so I guess I’ll never know
            if I’m right. Oh well. I think I am though.

            I
            hope you let me know—as soon as the smoke stops coming out of your
            ears.

          • Djushi

             Wow, now that’s a lot! Firstly I’ll say, I hate having to ‘load more comments’ inccesantly too. But up at the top, just above the first comment, is a little drop-down menu, and you can select ‘show newest first’. There are only two comments before this thread, that way. Saves a lot of time :)

            As for smoke coming out of my ears … I was reading your post last night and my dad started reading over my shoulder. We were in hysterics! We were dancing up and down in front of the computer, accusing each other of being obese and covered with acne! It was hilarious. Anyway. I could go into all the reasons why I’m not depressed and why I am very happy with the way I look, but that would just mean more exhausting text for you to read. So I’ll just say: I’m not depressed, I do have friends (and I make and keep friends quite easily, including all ages, genders, races, backgrounds) and abortion is most certainly not the only issue in my bag of tricks. I just happen to live, breathe and have Jesus, which makes me an intense personality, I guess. Jesus is pretty intense. But, as you have witnessed, I am quite capable of debating at length without mentioning who I live for. But, since you choose to ‘profile me’, I thought i’d better set you straight. You can believe me or not. Seriously, how do I even know you’re a man? How do I know you live in the US? How can I believe anything you’ve told me? Well, I just do. And you can either believe me, or not. You can believe my dad wrote this for me, or my cousin, or my pet alien if you like. The fact is, I wrote it and it’s the truth. But anyway. On to the real subject.

            To understand what I wrote about allowing my offspring to live and myself to die, you’ll have to understand my worldview. Yes, it’s pretty much ‘Jesus’. I am not afraid of death. AT ALL. Seriously, how can I be afraid of an event that sees me meet my Jesus? Sees me in eternal bliss? Now, I do not ‘want’ to die. I have an awesome life down here. And I have lots that I want to accomplish. Lots that I believe I will accomplish. But if I have two seconds before my death when I know I’m going to die and only a miracle will save me, those two seconds will be exciting, not fearful. I know what comes next – and it’s happy! I truly hope that you will come to understand this, and have it for yourself. But I bet you’ve heard it before. This is my life – fearless, joyous, with a sure hope. And I have it because of Jesus.

            Arguing over math … well for one thing, I didn’t say I argued over it. I just insisted on knowing why. And yes, my parents definately could shed more light on the subject! I was a kid struggling through long division, and my dad’s a high-school math teacher! My mum isn’t a qualified teacher but she certainly knows more math than I do. And she could explain it to me. Sometimes I didn’t ‘get’ her expanations, though, and after trying to explain ‘why’ all these formulas worked and finding out that I hadn’t understood a word of it, she would get very frustrated. I’m fine with long division now, btw. I’m not an incessant arguer. I just want to know why. I’m a pretty incessant debater, though, as you may have noticed.

            Okay. Breathing. Cord being cut. So you get that those are totally unimportant things in the definition of personhood. I think I understand now… it’s the phase of development that makes a person.
            Have you considered that that is a completely arbitrary cut-off point? Cause, I mean, someone else could just decide that puberty is the cut-off point. ‘You’re not a person till you’re out of the childhood phase and into the adult phase’. ‘If you can’t reproduce, you’re not a person’. We have all sorts of phases, and gestation is just one of many. Why is a human in one stage not a person, but a human in another stage is a person? We have the infant stage, the toddler stage, child stage, adolescent stage, adult stage, elderly stage. The gestational stage just happens to be the shortest, with the shortest time of changing to the next stage. Birth takes only a few hours in most cases, sometimes minutes and sometimes days. Puberty, for instance, takes a bit longer, I believe. You have just chosen one stage of development and said ‘you can kill the human now.’ You’ve said that it doesn’t matter what the human can or can’t do. It doesn’t matter about the physical attributes – a premmie baby, once born, with exactly the same attributes as a ‘fetus’, is considered a person. It’s just the fact that the society around us says that the human inside her mother is in a particular ‘stage’, and that allows us to kill her. since physical attributes don’t matter, all I can come up with is the location.

            What do you think?

            (I’ll reply to the miscarriage question when I have a bit more time.)

          • Djushi

             Oh, and yes, I guess I am demanding the world live under my definition. Problem?
            Nah not really. I may be demanding that people do what I say. Everyone does that to some degree. I just happen to have vastly different definitions to some people, and be non-compromising, and be horrified at what I believe to be wrong, and be willing to change that which I believe to be wrong. In other words, an idealist, just like William Wilborforce, Nelson Mandela, and all those other great people. ‘I have a dream’, remember, didn’t just refer to Martin. He was dreaming about other people doing what he believed to be right. Same here. I don’t just dream about myself being the good guy. I actively try to cause other people to dream my dream as well.
            Arrogant? I prefer ‘dreamer’. But you can call me ‘arrogant’ if you like.

          • Djushi

             Hey … are you and Relock the same person???

        • Djushi

            Just realised my reply to your post below is unreadable when normally viewed. I’ll repost here:

          Your question:

          You don’t agree that you’re actively trying to removeyour rights?

          My reply:

           Again, depends what you define ‘rights’ as.

          If ‘rights’ means ‘the right to (insert any word under the sun)’ then yes! I am actively trying to remove my rights!

          Problem with the above method of defining rights it, I could say I
          have a right to kill my 8 year old sister. Or, I could say I have a
          right to never word. Or I have a right to steal. Etc etc etc.

          ‘My right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose’. A person has
          a right to do all sorts of things – so long as those things do not harm
          other people, and in the case of a minor, so long as those things do
          not harm oneself, outside of set perimeters.

          Or, you could argue that a ‘right’ is whatever the highest applicable
          power says is your right. The US gov’t says abortion is a right, thus
          it is a right. The German gov’t says killing Jews is a right, thus it is
          a right. The Chinese gov’t says free speech is not a right, thus it is
          not a right.

          Is abortion a right? You have argued ‘yes’, because you have said that an abortion does not harm a person (other than what limited harm may be done to the woman/girl, which is not what we’re discussing). I argue ‘no’, because I say that an abortion, in harming a fetus/embroyo/zygote/whatever you want to call him, of human nature, is harming
          (in fact killing) a person. You have argued ‘yes’ because the gov’t
          says it is a right. I argue ‘no’ because I say that governments are not
          always correct, so that factor ceases to matter, so we fall back on my
          previous ‘no’, which rests on the basis of the whole question.

          Is or is not an unborn human a ‘person’ with ‘rights’ like any other ‘person’.
          PS sorry it took me so long to reply, I was down at some Agricultural field days with some equally date-less friends :D

    • Djushi

       RELOCK, just copy-and-pasting your comment here for some context :)

      ” I can’t find the long post you did 5 hours ago.  I see it in your
      profile but not on the blog.  So I’ll do my best.  And I won’t write as
      much as you, no offense.  Still curious about your country–maybe I
      missed it.  In my question I made it clear her reasons were irrelevant.
       She wanted it, dr. provided it, both parted ways happy.  Offer and
      acceptance.  For this, you want them to serve 23 years in prison.    You
      mentioned multiple times, ‘probably’.  ‘Probably under duress, probably
      this, probably that, etc.  Laws cannot be written for a few.  Laws are
      for the masses without stepping on the rights of the few.  And no matter
      what you may think, abortion laws do not hinder the rights of the
      pro-life movement.  Everyone feels differently about big issues in their
      life.  Some are happy, some regret.  Laws are never loved by all.  They
      are there because in the big picture, they benefit the greater good, no
      matter how horrified this makes some people.   If you think pro-life is
      the majority in the US, watch the push-back as states slowly pass
      barriers to abortion.  Women will rise up and not back down.  It won’t
      be abortion doctors who, as you say, love the abortion money, it will be
      women.  I tried to lay out superficially the process of someone going
      to prison to make a point–bigger gov’t. as well as
      finding perpetrators.  Have you thought about how the gov’t. would
      discover who had an illegal abortion?  You mentioned let robbers out of
      prison.  This is the fundamental difference between everyone on this
      site and the law: Growing fetuses are not equal to living people.  I
      know this horrifies you, but it has to be this way.  Robbers violate the
      civil rights of living people.  The rights lie with the pregnant woman,
      not the fetus she carries.  Again, I know this is horrifying, but it
      has to be this way.   You also mentioned Jesus.  It’s fine to be
      religious.  But it’s perfectly legal in the US to be an atheist.  Laws
      cannot be passed that force Atheists to live under religious based laws.
       So, sorry, religion cannot be used in this argument.  I’ll wrap this
      up because I’ve gone on too long.  One thing we all must do: if you call
      for the outlawing of an industry, you must be prepared to confront the
      consequences of that outlaw.  It’s not enough to say ‘this is horribly
      wrong and must stop’.  You have to say, ‘if this stops, what happens to
      society?’  Remember, outlawing does not affect demand.  Pot, cocaine and
      heroin are all illegal–how’s their demand?  Are we doing a bang-up job
      catching those culprits?  Til we talk again, Djushi. ”

      • Djushi

        I say ‘probably this’ and ‘probably that’ in relation to the severity of the punishment. Again, I don’t know the details of how your justice system works. Ie. is there a minimum jail sentence for murder, rape, etc? Or does the judge have free rein on the punishment after the jury convicts the accused? But anyway, it’s not reeeally important … in that, I don’t think it is ‘probably’ that abortion is murder, I think it IS. There are definates and variables. The variable is the (severity of) punishment. The definate is the ruling – guilty of killing a person, or hiring someone else to kill a person. Check out the Abort73 website.

        I have actually thought about how the government would go about finding abortionists, and women who get (illegal) abortions. It would be pretty tricky. It’s pretty tricky finding the perpetrators of a lot of crimes. Finding the woman might be the trickier option – finding the doc, or the ‘clinic’ might be the easier. Thus, more hospital premise inspections, checking of hospital records as to the women who have comes in needing patching up after abortions (http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/abortiondoctors.cfm, read Dr Beverly McMillan’s story). I guess we’d have a crack police force to find baby-killers :) But seriously, just breaking up the big abortion rings, cutting abortion from the government funded, ‘visible’ places would save thousands of lives.

        Yes, I mentioned Jesus, in the context of knowing you don’t believe in him, and actually to make the point that we’ll never be rid of abortion. I’ve never used him in this discussion to counter arguments.

        If abortion stops, suddenly, yes we’ll have a bit of chaos. Do you realise how much chaos occurred at the end of slavery in America? The end of Apartheid in South Africa? The end of the extermination camps in WWII? The end of Stalin’s rule? The end of convict transportation to my own country, Australia? (yes, I live in the same place as these people: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract). It made sense, for the continuity of society, for all these to remain in place. It was *not right*. Apartheid ending turned society upside down! Not to mention the wars. But it was wrong, and it was kicked out. Perhaps too suddenly …? Actually LiveAction posted something about the ‘end of abortion’ – the difficulties should it end suddenly. But it’s still wrong, difficult or no, and I will still fight to end it.

        You say ‘it has to be this way’. I think I recall reading that in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. ‘It has to be this way.’ No, it doesn’t. It had to be the way that blacks were kept in their places. It had to be the way that women could not vote. It had to be the way that the Crusaders slaughtered thousands of innocent people. It had to be the way … But it DIDN’T. It was ‘easier to be the way’. And it was the wrong way. This: http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_pictures/ is wrong. Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are wrong. Traditionally, abortion it right. Really, it is wrong.

        Okay, got a little worked up there : ). If you’d like to discuss why a fetus is/isn’t a person, I’d be much more than happy to. : )

        • Relock77219

          I read on another of your posts that you’re 17.  Your answers make perfect sense in this context.  You’re an idealist, which people of your age usually are.  Lila Rose is, I was, we all were.  No offense.  I’m going to assume you are female.  And I’m also going to assume that you have never wanted to do something that was your right, only to have the government say you cannot.  When you get older I hope you never experience this.  It causes protests no free country should ever see.

          I am a male.  And if you, a female, wanted to exercise your rights and the government said no,  I would fight non stop for your right to exercise those rights.

          Like insurance, rights don’t have to be used.  They’re just there.  Courtesy of your free country.  I guess you can thank Jesus for that.

          Take care.

          • Djushi

            Those who fought to end other injustices were also ‘idealists’. If the world ever runs out of idealists, it will … well, it won’t be the ideal place, put it that way.
            Yes, I’m 17. And female. And an idealist. And you’re what I thought you were, too.  But I hope you won’t write me off for being an idealist … I think the world needs a good dose of idealism. We’re running low on it. But that’s a bit of an exaggeration to imply that only idealists rebel against the thought of infant members of our (human) kind being killed by the thousands. It’s idealism to insist no one eat meat, or go over the speed limit when overtaking, or dress in leather or roll their eyes at their teacher.
            As for not being allowed my rights … You’re probably right. Of course, most importantly … I’ve never, ever lost my life.

            And, idealism or no, I really, really, really mean to fight to make sure no tiny human looses theirs at the will of another.

            If you’re up to debating an idealist, I’m still more than happy to.

          • Relock77219

            I guess I was assuming you’d be offended at being labeled by me.  You’re not, so great.

            You mentioned in your last post:
            … just breaking up the big abortion rings, cutting abortion from the government funded, ‘visible’ places would save thousands of lives”.The US had prohibition of alcohol many years ago.  It became a haven for organized crime.  So much so they had to legalize it. Remember, illegality does not change demand.  Some women will change their minds, probably true.  But many will choose abortion, legal or not.  It will force those who were doing something legally to go underground, and get what they’re after in a very dangerous way.  It will put thousands of pregnant women’s lives in danger.  Will a woman who is bleeding severely from an incompetent doctor seek help?  Knowing full well the ER will know what she was doing and be forced to, I don’t know, call the police?  I hope you’re not saying, ‘good, I hope she bleeds to death, see how she likes it.’  Knowing you as I do, I don’t think you’re that way.  This is what I mean when I say ‘it has to be this way’.The last thing I want to mention is finding the abortion doctors.  Any abortion will be off the books.  Only a fool will keep records.  It will force the police, on a regular basis like drug testing, to forage through doctor offices looking for clues, evidence, anything.  They can’t look at medical records due to doctor-patient confidentiality.  They would need a judge to give them a warrant for each and every visit for each and every doctor they’re suspicious of.  Impractical.  Organized crime will control this.  Incompetent doctors who have lost their licenses will be paid nicely to perform abortions for customers who can pay.  Those who can’t pay will get more creative.  I know you think I’m making this up, but this is what happens.  Demand is the key; it just cannot be legislated away.  There’s a reason this procedure is legal.  They did not come to this decision lightly.

          • Djushi

             Thanks for your faith in me. No, I’m not the sort of (horrible) person to say ‘good, I hope she bleeds to death, see how she likes it.’ Not at *all*.
            I can truly see where you’re coming from. And I can imagine myself arguing the same position. But I don’t, and you can tell why not.
            I’m guessing you’ve noticed the recent hubub about the two Aussies who published an article arguing for the acceptance of ‘after-birth abortions’. Let’s just suppose that this came to pass. ‘After-birth abortion’ are an accepted part of our culture, and our legal system. Then a generation rises up and says, ‘No.’ A generation of idealists, who say, ‘The killing of newborns is wrong and must stop.’
            What would you argue?
            After all, in this culture, after-birth abortions are accepted, by the populace and by the law. There’s a demand for them. And it won’t. go. away.
            Weeeellll, seeing as, if it is outlawed, people will just perform after-birth abortions on their children anyway, how about we leave it legal? Of course it must be done painlessly, so it is definately better to have a doctor on hand. But some women will try to administer the lethal injection themselves … which could be dangerous (to the woman). Of course, the women could get more creative, and all that. So … what would you argue?

            I definately don’t think you’re making that up. I may be young, but I’m not as ignorant as I could be. Not to say I’m an expert (on anything). And I can imagine the horrible mess … It will get complicated. Reform is always complicated. And we must, *must* work on ‘the demand’. I can’t pretend we do enough in this area. We don’t. We need to take back the media, the education materials, the common expectations – in short, the culture. And we don’t do enough. It might interest you to read that I’m an aspiring screenwriter, novelist and journalist, my life is headed (like an explosive, I hope) for the South American sex-slave trade, and I’m studying Community Services in a tertiary institute.

            But alcohol is still different to abortion. Abortion has a single cause. Alcohol is, I think, a more general human dillemma. I mean, misery created alcoholics. (I know, it’s more complicated than that … but wait.) Abortion is one of several ‘options’, which come under one heading – Unreasonable Sex. Don’t blast me yet! Unreasonable doesn’t mean ‘out of wedlock’. I would rather everyone stayed celibate until marriage, but if you don’t want to do that, fine. To be reasonable, though, you have to be willing to have a child – either to adopt him/her out, or keep him/her.
            Anyway, single heading. Hopefully easier for people to recognise and avoid. Avoiding misery, kind of hard. Avoiding unreasonable sex? We’re people, not animals. It shouldn’t be an unreasonable request. And if it is, I’ll just be reasonable and say that you should go to jail. :)

            Some people do use abortion like birth control. Those are the people who (I think) will be more affected by the shutting down of the ‘high vis’ places. If that birth control isn’t available, I’m hoping these people won’t use it. They will be responsible people. They will talk about real people like my imaginary Mary and Jim (below).
            I know some people do get ‘addicted to sex’. But if it can be illegal to drink, and then drive, it can be illegal to have sex and then kill a child.

            Sorry that post is so long.

          • Relock77219

            I don’t want to get into repeating myself.  A living, born person has all the rights of any other living, born person.   And I’m not talking about an aborted fetus that happens to be still alive.  You know what I mean.  A fetus does not have those rights.  I made it clear above why that is.  I don’t know anything about what these people are trying to pass.  Infanticide is killing a living person, and has always been against the law.  It won’t pass.  And if it did, it will be missing a crucial element I explained above: demand.  No matter what you may think, there will not be a demand for a procedure like this.  Throw all the hypotheticals at me you want, demand won’t be there.  It will, therefore, not be an issue, except in the minds of the right to life movement.

            I brought up prohibition only to show what happens when there’s a high demand for something that is outlawed.  What is demanded is irrelevant.  Your ‘after-birth abortion’ example does not pass the test.Some advice if you don’t mind. You should submerge yourself in the sex-slave trade (you know what I mean).  I think a young, energetic person like yourself can really make a difference in those girl’s lives.  Focusing on a women’s health issue that was settled in the 1970s is probably not the best use of your time and energy.Take care.

          • Djushi

            I feel kind of like I’m repeating myself too! But that’s okay.
            I know what happens when something that is in demand is oulawed. You haven’t addressed my comparison to the oulawing of slavery etc. There will be chaos, I know! That doesn’t make it right.

            Have you read the ethicists’ article? They make some valid points. Birth, for all the lovey-dovey feelings, is not magical. It cannot magically turn a creature from a clump of cells into a person with all the rights a person can ever have.

            Again, the question is: What defines a person?
            Is it having air in your lungs?
            Being able to see more than a few inches?
            Being visible?
            Existing in the right place?
            Getting nutrients from the right place?
            Being a certain size?
            Being dress-able and cuddle-able?
            Photogenic?

            I think you get my point. I’m ready to discuss personhood with you any day of the week.

            The women’s health issue … if it was settled in the 1970’s, let me tell you it’s unsettled now. And as long as I live, I will unsettle any ‘issue’ that involves the taking of innocent lives for any reason. It will not settle again in my lifetime.

            I know we talking a little about fetus rights etc. above, but I thought I had the last word. I’m more than ready to go it again.

            Thanks for talking!

          • Relock77219

            I think we’re officially going in circles.  For the third time, slaves are people and have all living person rights.  Fetus’s do not have those rights.  Why?  Because the pregnant woman does.  See my black market post above.  I think you are conveniently ignoring what I’m writing so you can keep arguing.  If you don’t take my sex-slave advice I think you’re admitting you don’t want to do the real hard work.  Typing on a message board about something that was settled 40 years ago is not work.  It’s a diversion.  Make a difference in these girl’s lives.  They need you more than this blog.  I hope you’re good and mad now.

          • Djushi

            Relock, I’m not good and mad. I can understand why you said what you did (at least I think I can). I think you just missed the point of my previous post – I asked if you were ready to debate WHY a fetus is not a person, because, as I said, I’m ready to debate it any day of the week.

            It’s not the blog I’m working for right now. It’s you, and through you the human lives you can impact.

            I’m sorry if it sounded like I was brushing aside what you said. I want to do the hard work. I can’t just rush off though. I’m doing a course (actually, more than one) to be prepared to rush off when the time comes. And I’m practicing my debating skills.

            So, a fetus does not have rights because a woman does have rights? Is that your argument? What exactly is your argument? Rachel’s is that a fetus is not a person, to use her terminology, a fetus is just a genetic blueprint. I’ve debated her for a while on that one, but our discussion ended on one of my questions that she didn’t answer. Someone close to me who is pro-abortion is that because, while he says a fetus is a person, it’s in his/her best interests to be killed because it’s better than being beaten to death by abusive parents, etc.. and I was in the process of arguing it through with him when he said he’d rather not debate with me.

            I say a fetus is a person. He has his own gender, DNA, and life, and is a human. Not part of the mother. Not dead. Not a parasite (one of the most frustrating arguments I’ve ever heard)!

            So, the point of this post is to say: When and why is the killing of a fetus okay?

  • lovinglee

    I wanna say something first of all women choose to have abortions all the time i know  a few people for some reason one way or another they have decided to abort they have had ultrasounds to determine how long they are and i know that when your mind is made up on what you wanna do then sometimes the ultra sound or whatever does not change you mind as for rape or not  ” the woman must be given the opportunity to see the ultrasound image and hear the heartbeat. She is not required to do either, but the option must be made available to her.” it does not say that she has to or anything but only that the option be made to her like really people you sure didn’t read the article  i know where i live we already do this ultra sound to determine exactly how far along someone is pregnant and my best friend had a aborton and had the ultra sound and was given a week to let it sink in before she made a final descision and sooooo  at the end of the day we know what we want as  women and im sorry sometimes things happen that we decide that  we cant and dont want to bring a child into the world and i am sorry that if offends people but I know that someone people its they cant afford a child its not the time for a child and the thought of giving there child  to someone else is to hard to bear like really could you imagine someone else raising your child or being put into a system that isn’t that good anyways just because you couldn’t deal with it aborton could save a child from a living hell look at the kids out there now that are in the system cause they were given up and not wanted raped living on the street and that other crap give me a reason why for some people aborton is better then sending there child into a system and not knowing how there lives turned out and not knowning if the kid is health or not i think that some people are doing the world a favor and aborton should be welcomed by all and not treated like a crime  im sorry but i have three beautiful girls and I decided to have my 3rd  daughter when my tubal ligation failed  she means the world and everyone said how do you do it……i manage maybe if i knew things would be this hard finacially i dont know what i would have done……. my friend had an aborton not long after that and i held her hand and was with her threw it all  i would not look down on her ever for it she did it for the right reason and i love her 

  • texshelters

    You really think a probe stuffed into your body against your will isn’t rape? Really?

    http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/we-need-a-sharia-law-for-christ/

    Peace,
    Tex Shelters

  • Steven313

    the article says that forced ultrasounds are just no big deal. there are several problems with what they are saying.

    First look at the photo they are using. I would hazarded a guess that
    that woman is more than 12 weeks along and am just guessing the same by
    the look of the fetus on the screen, also that is not how it is done.
    the embryo is so small that the this kind of ultrasound can not be done
    and they must use a wand so this picture should show the woman having
    the wand forced up her vagina. Of course they would never show that
    because it would be “dirty”. which means that they can not show what is
    being done because SEEING it is too sexual in natural but can order it
    to be done because DOING it is not sexual in nature at all.

    next ” The state legislature leaves the decision of what kind of
    ultrasound is performed up to the discretion of the doctor who performs
    it. Never mentioned is the fact that abortion is entirely voluntary. No
    woman is going to be forcibly tied down, made to have a transvaginal
    ultrasound, and then forced into an abortion.” ok this is wrong on two
    counts, the type of ultrasound HAS to show the embryo, if the embryo is
    too small for an external ultrasound, then the wand MUST be used. which
    at under 12 weeks will most likely be the case. the second lie in this
    is that it is “voluntary” and the woman can say “no”. that is true in
    that she can say “no” and NOT have the abortion. she can NOT say “no”
    and still have it. this way they can literary force a doctor to rape
    his patient and them smile a smug smile and say “see she wanted it”.

    also there is “That most abortions involve vaginal probing, including vacuum
    aspiration, which takes place in the first trimester. Apparently the
    abortion isn’t rape, but the ultrasound is. The abortion advocates are
    selectively hysterical in their outrage over women being “penetrated”.”
    the woman is there for the abortion, she is not there to have a wand
    forced inside her. what part of “consent” do you just not understand?
    that is the same nonsense that says that if a woman EVER has sex she can
    ever be raped because she already gave consent once.