Is This Rape?

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Carmady

Thank you for answering clearly, but I think you are mistaken.

Here is the quote from the Virginia law again:

“The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable.”

I understand that an image sufficient to satisfy the language of the law may not be possible without a transvaginal ultrasound. Backing me up is the failed amendment which would have allowed women to opt out of the ultrasound in cases where the transvaginal ultrasound was required to get the image. Also backing me up are the many sources saying that it would be required early in pregnancies.

So I have quite a bit backing up my understanding. How did you come to your conclusion?

We just went over this earlier, so I’ll just copy and paste my response to you.

@Me

I’m sorry, but do you consider the above to be a serious rebuttal? Because, you know, it’s not unless you’re somehow going to assume that the purpose of an ultrasound in Florida is just to do one and get whatever picture you want. I, however, am pretty sure that’s untrue. The purpose of an ultrasound is to obtain a clear picture of the unborn. We all know this. Transvaginal ultrasounds are used in the first weeks of pregnancy because they generally generate the best images. The idea that any state would mandate ultrasounds but would forgo using whatever would allow for the best image of the unborn at whatever gestational age we’re talking about is slightly absurd, not to mention there’s no reason to believe this wouldn’t be the case.

Your assertion requires one to assume that Florida performs sonograms just to perform them without caring whether those sonograms provide a clear picture of the unborn or not. I’m sure, however, that everyone on this board knows this isn’t the case as there would be no point in a to begin with. Hell, I know it’s untrue as there was a pretty big, semi-nasty debate about it last year.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

I can.

I fear that what we have here is a failure to understand. What I can demonstrate is that no one claimed those other states whose laws lacked specific provisions detailing what kinds of sonograms would be used would be guilty of “rape”, even though there is nothing in the language which would either prohibit or require it.

Well, if you’re going to go that far out of your way to beg to be corrected:

Not only is this law an insult to women in Texas, a close reading of the Texas Penal Code, Section 22.011, suggests that the new law may also constitute a sexual assault upon women, which is a second-degree felony. The code defines a sexual assault as an offense in which a person intentionally or knowingly causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person’s consent. Furthermore, the law stipulates that one condition of nonconsent is met when the actor is a public servant who coerces the other person to submit or participate.

Under the Texas penal code penetration of a woman’s vagina without her consent is sexual assault. In other words, it is rape — which is punishable by imprisonment. All this is why I took umbrage, in the Facebook exchange I mentioned above, with a man who likened “rape by the state” via the Texas’ transvaginal ultrasound law to his paying taxes to “the IRS.”

Seriously, three minutes.

[QUOTE= O M MF G]
You tried to argue that the Virginia law somehow mandated the use of transvaginal ultrasounds while the Florida law did not. I pointed out that if a state is going to mandate an ultrasound as a requirement for having an abortion that there is no reason to believe they would not use the one which gives the clearest image. As to your question, as I’ve said numerous times now, there is nothing in which either requires nor prohibits its use-- much like the Virginia law before it was changed. In fact, only the Virginia law specifies any specific kind of ultrasound whereas, before today, none did.
[/QUOTE]

You are behaving like a silly person. This has already been adequately explained.

[Elizabeth Nash, the public policy associate at Guttmacher who follows this issue, said that what’s different about the legislation in Virginia and a similar Republican-backed law in Texas that went into effect last month is the specificity of the quality and detail of the images that must be obtained.

“Neither Texas nor Virginia spell out the use of an internal ultrasound,” Nash said. “But there’s no other way to get those images.”

In the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, when nearly 90 percent of abortions are performed, the “jelly-on-the-belly” ultrasound in which an imaging wand is moved over the stomach of a pregnant woman usually doesn’t give enough information to satisfy the stricter laws, Nash said.](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-17/news/ct-oped-0217-zorn-20120217_1_abortion-clinic-early-stage-abortions-transvaginal-ultrasound)

Texas and Virginia require. Florida lets doctors practice medicine, at least on the narrow issue of what sort of imaging is called for. That’s the difference between a thing that is mandated and a thing that is not mandated. Coincidentally, Texas and Virginia are the states whose laws are being decried for codifying official sexual assault. Not that Florida’s law isn’t ridiculous too. And to anticipate your response: two things can be bad, and one thing can be the thing that gets complained about the most, and that doesn’t mean the other thing isn’t also bad.

[Carmady]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Your assertion requires one to assume that Florida performs sonograms just to perform them without caring whether those sonograms provide a clear picture of the unborn or not. I’m sure, however, that everyone on this board knows this isn’t the case as there would be no point in a to begin with. Hell, I know it’s untrue as there was a pretty big, semi-nasty debate about it last year.

Remember that we are only talking about medically unnecessary ultrasounds here. In those specific cases, it is not medically important to have a clear picture. That is trivially true, isn’t it?

Besides, you didn’t really answer the question. I just gave you several reasons why my understanding is that the Virginia law would require transvaginal ultrasounds in some cases. You have read the law, you have read the failed amendment, and you have read the sources claiming that it would be required early in pregnancies.

What makes you conclude that, by law, it would never be required?

[psychobunny]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

We just went over this earlier, so I’ll just copy and paste my response to you.

Your assertion requires one to assume that Florida performs sonograms just to perform them without caring whether those sonograms provide a clear picture of the unborn or not.

By George, I think he’s finally go it! Of course they perform the sonograms just to perform them as there is NO MEDICAL REASON to require them!

[andros]

@Bryan_Ekers

So why not demand three ultrasounds over a period of a week? Maybe that will do it. And make the woman sign a loyalty oath and sing the national anthem first. That might do the trick. After all, this is abortion we’re trying to get rid of! Maybe making her juggle oranges, do a tap dance and sing the Catalina Magdalena Luptenschteiner Volunbeiner song will do. We’re just gonna keep trying until we find the solution. Those poor defenseless preborn babies are counting on us!

Mandatory nine month waiting period?

[andros]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

It comes from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in their ruling of the constitutionality of the Texas sonogram law based on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, though I’m currently having a bit of trouble locating the actual text.

Much obliged, thanks.

As for the rest:

. . . the people going on about it . . . the people screaming about it . . . some of the posts in this thread from persons who . . . Democrats . . .

My apologies. I did not understand you were using hyperbole. Clearly when you speak of “everyone” you only mean “some people.” I’m sure you’ll understand my confusion, as I’m one of those people you seemed to say do not exist.

I’ve been away from the boards for quite a while, I’m unfamiliar with your posting idiosyncrasies. Now I been edumacated.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@andros

Mandatory nine month waiting period?

It wouldn’t shock me if some legislator had seriously proposed it.

[Isaristh]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/17/427778/virginia-poised-to-enact-state-sponsored-rape-law-forcing-women-to-be-vaginally-probed-before-abortions/

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.

The difference between this and “medical exams that involve the examination of the reproductive organs and the anus” is that you are not forced to the latter, where in this particular situation, you are. If you want an abortion that is.

Yet the fact you are forced to do something so invasive before being allowed to do something else is wrong, pure and simple. Rape? Maybe not quite, but it gets pretty close. Opinions of the abortion issue aside, the United States is a country that founded itself on personal liberty and the ability to make our own decisions. This act is obviously intended only to play the guilt card, the “Look at it! It’s INSIDE YOU! LOOK AT IT YOU HORRIBLE PERSON! Ok, so are we good for the 14th or are you having second thoughts?”.

Should people make informed decisions? Of course, but people shouldn’t have to get prodded and showed, most likely, nothing just to get an abortion. It’s invasive and unnecessary and should not be law.

[Frylock]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Never mind the fact that you’re assuming some kind of unrestricted right of access,

It is a fact that women currently have the right to abort their fetuses in the US.

(3) is most definitely wrong. Rape, by definition, involves the lack of consent. In the aforementioned situation, the ability to have an abortion is contingent on undergoing an ultrasound. Every woman who undergoes an abortion knows this, because it’s explained beforehand.

It seems you’re assuming that knowing the consequences of an act before undertaking it implise consent to those consequences. But this is only true sometimes, not always. For example, if I know that you will shoot someone if I take a step towards you, this does not mean that by stepping toward you I consent to you shooting someone. Similarly, just because I know you will require me to allow you to put something in my vagina before you will give me what is rightfully mine, this does not mean I consent to you putting something in my vagina. Even if I say “go ahead and put something in my vagina” this still is not consent in the relevant sense–any more than a woman would be “consenting” to be penetrated if she did so at gunpoint.

Not every instance of “allowing” something to happen is an instance of “consenting” to its happening. Knowing the consequences ahead of time may constitute a case of “allowing” something to happen in a sense, but it doesn’t constitute “consent.”

While I have mentioned a situation involving duress in this post, don’t misunderstand me as arguing that the woman seeking the abortion is under duress in the same sense. My point is that what makes the duress case fail to count as consent involves a distinction between “merely allowing” something to happen and “genuinely consenting” to its happening–and that is by way of illustration, to lead you to see that the same distinction applies in the abortion case.

With that said, come to think of it, she is under duress anyway, precisely because something she has a right to is being denied to her unless she allows the penetration to happen. That is duress by definition.

[TripleFail]

Why is it people still dancing around the ideas of “consent” and “rape”. As far as I can tell ultrasound are used to check if the fetus is developing correctly in a normal pregnancy. In a case of abortion ultrasound is used for 2 reasons. If its over 24 weeks old then its illegal to perform an abortion and to choose the correct medical procedure to carry out the abortion. If a normal ultrasound sees nothing then the fetus can’t be that far along the developmental stage why bother sticking a probe up the vagina to get a clearer picture when all you wanted was a gestation age. If any laws to be made it should stop at saying gestation age must be determined to a sufficient level before abortion. Or if people want to ban abortion on moral reasons then make that clear and stop pretending it has any medical relevance at all.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Oh, and just to reiterate, those complaining don’t care about “the probe” (that sounds like a 50’s horror movie), as it’s the actual ultrasound-- whether or not it’s invasive or not-- that draws their ire.

Well I think its two complaints. One is the unconstitutional imposition of a hurdle ANY hurdle on abortions in the first trimester and the second is the particularly offensive nature of THIS particular hurdle.

As a conservative, I would think that the extra an unneccessary cost of an ultrasound imposed on the public and insurance companies would make you take the other side of the argument. The Virginia rule doesn’t even require the woman to look at the ultrasound, only that she undergoes one prior to abortion.

The purpose of an ultrasound prior to abortion is not even medically helpful, it is purely to fuck with these women. This is the sort of legislation that makes me think that Der Trishs might be ontyo something when he says these people just hate women.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Well, at least you already admitted this is incoherent.

There are four states with ultrasound laws. Two of them are enjoined (Oklahoma and North Carolina) pending court review and two are on the books as law of the land (Texas and Florida). Arguments against them have ranged from everything from them being demeaning to women to mandatory ultrasounds violating the first amendment rights of the abortion provider (seriously!).

Now I am usually wary of using universal qualifiers, but no one screamed rape in the following four instances. Maybe the first four were rape but the left didn’t notice them because they all flew in under the radar (not likely). Or maybe they were all rape and the left just forgot to label them as rape (not like, either). Or maybe (and far more likely) none of them are actually rape, and the left found out pretty quickly that the above stated arguments they were using to argue against mandatory ultrasounds weren’t exactly what you would called political winners, especially with more states poised to pass their own ultrasounds law.

Ergo, enter the hyperbole. What better way to mobilize your base (and make a fool of yourself in the process) than to scream rape? Anyone who thinks the left is screaming rape because they’re actually worried that this may be akin to rape is fooling themselves, as if the left actually thought mandatory ultrasounds were rape, they wouldn’t have waited four years, five ultrasound laws and a few failed arguments down the road to start screaming it. And here I was under the impression that only the right engaged in fearmongering. Go figure.

But anyway, there is a lesson to be learned here; if you’re not as successful as you want to be, find a(nother) boogeyman to scream about. That’s pretty much all you’ve got, anyway.

Is your argument that because they didn’t xscream rape earlier, that it couldn’t be rape now?

My kneejerk reaction was to assume it was leftist hyperventilating but when you coerce a woman into submitting to someone sticking a probe into her vagina by making a condition to abortion, it is at least rapey as conditioning a promotion on having sex with your boss.

[erislover]

@Damuri_Ajashi

This is the sort of legislation that makes me think that Der Trishs might be ontyo something when he says these people just hate women.

I think conservatives broadly have a great many reasonable positions. I think they’re wrong about most of them; but, reasonable people can disagree. On this topic, though, it seems to defy reasonableness. Women are breeding chattel. As a witness for the prosecution might say, “It is consistent with the theory.”

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

This is right up there with claiming the the right wants to bring back Jim Crow laws or that the right wants to hang Blacks from trees or that the right wants to take away your birth control. It makes a nice soundbite, but is utterly devoid of any facts (or logic, for that matter).

But, hey, apparently extreme rhetoric is okay. For the left.

Well, there are people that want to bring back Jim Crow, hang blacks from trees and take away brith control. Guess which side of the political spectrum they tend to populate?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

Regardless, it’s only “mandated” if you choose to have an abortion. Yeah, I know. The dreaded “c” word. Those acting like women are going to be strapped down and be vaginally probed against their will are engaging in the worst kind of rhetoric. Nothing of the sort has happened when this legislation passes and once it does pass, people quickly forget about it.

Its coercive.