As a pro-lifer while I support having at the least requiring women to have ultrasounds and counseling before undertaking an abortion, I am opposed to the particular Virginia measure in question due to the invasive nature of the procedure.
However is it really appropriate to call this rape? I mean by this logic medical exams that involve examination of the reproductive organs and the anus can be termed rape. And the comments section of that article were so full of left-wing nut paranoia that it was laughable.
Of course it’s not rape, that’s a ridiculous idea. This procedure would be both consensual and non-sexual, so that pretty much contradicts the two defining elements of rape.
I like that you’ve set a line in as to which medically unnecessary procedures are OK.
I consider requiring a women to go through an ultra-sound test she doesn’t wish to have done in order to make personal medical decisions to be way outside the real of what government should be doing.
Is forcing people to go through medically unnecessary probing rape? I don’t think so, rape to me involves forced sexual activity. It is still an extreme personal invasion, but not rape.
Regardless of how you want to categorize it, it isn’t right
It may not be rape, but in my opinion “consensual” is pushing it, because there’s definitely duress there - undergo this unnecessary procedure or we will refuse to allow you to terminate this pregnancy. So while women may say yes to it, it is still under duress.
Consensual? So women can decline the procedure and still exercise a right recognized by the Supreme Court?
Not sexual? Insertion of objects into one’s sexual organs does indeed count as something sexual, even though sexual pleasure is not a component of the act.
Howzabout we require an anal probing if someone wants to attend a political rally?
Seriously, I find the idea that a state would consider such a thing to be sickening and offensive. Shame on the Virginia legislature.
As this editorial makes clearer, the point is that because the ultrasound is an unwanted physical intrusion, it’s not that different from sexual assault. As a figure of speech, I think it’s apt.
But not all penetrative acts are inherent parts of abortion procedures. A woman who consents to an abortion doesn’t thereby consent to any and all penetrative acts.
I doubt the Supreme Court explicitly said you can get an abortion with no strings attached. I assume someone has to pay for the abortion. If it’s rape because you can’t decline the procedure and still get an abortion then it’s also stealing to require payment or go without.
Then by the same logic a visit to the gynaecologist is sexual. Better hope that’s free too or you’ll be soliciting sexual services!
That would certainly be the next logical step.
I should point out that I don’t necessarily agree with the whole idea of forcing women to have this procedure. I have no idea if there’s medical justification for it, all I see is one story saying there’s none. Chances are it’s over the top, but to call it rape is kind of also over the top.
So you think it is okay to require arbitrary things to be done before a right can be exercised? Would you defend a law that requires someone to take a literacy test before they vote? That has been tried before, you know.
In that visiting a gynocologist is a reasonable procedure to maintain the health of sexual organs, yes, there is a sexual aspect to it. Again, sexual does not always mean for purposes of sexual gratification. Prostitution is clearly for sexual pleasure, so your argument is very poorly thought out.
The definition of the word “sexual” here doesn’t include your definition:
The definition of the word rape is clearly based on meaning 1 given above. You can’t just define “sexual” to mean anything relating to sexual organs and then extend the definition of rape accordingly, especially since it is clearly not non-consensual in any real sense. The point of the thread is “Is it rape?” not “Is this right?”. We can disagree entirely with the law without resorting to sensationalism and exaggeration.
If anybody doubts that this is a totally inappropriate violation then please tell me why thisamendment was voted down.
That’s right, not only did they veto an amendment asking that women consent to the procedure but they also vetoed standard ultrasounds, even if the physician determines that he/she can get a good image without intravaginal ultrasound.
Funny also how the Virginia lesislature who cares so much about informed consent vetoed thisamendment.
Ultrasounds and counseling are not medically required for abortions. The only reason for requiring them is to exert pressure on a woman seeking abortion. At least some rapists rape not because of sexual needs, but because they want to feel power over their victims…and that’s the same reason ultrasounds and counseling are advocated, in order to exert power over a woman who wants an abortion.
I’d say that the motives of people who want to require ultrasounds and counseling are the same as the motives of at least some rapists. The ultrasounds and counseling are not for the benefit of the woman who wants an abortion, they are to dissuade her from getting an abortion, and to make providing abortions more burdensome.
And, of course, let’s see who wants this legislation…oh look, it’s the party that claims it wants smaller government, and wants to get government out of people’s business! Unless, of course, the GOP can do a little social engineering for its own agenda…
You’re partially right. These measures are to stem the number of abortions and perhaps dissaude at least a few from having their fetuses butchered. But is not to “exert power” over women but to protect the lives of the fetuses.
Maybe because protecting the life of people is a fundamental function of government?
Hence why I’m opposed to this measure. I’m not sure what the Virginia legislature is thinking of.