After reading miss elizabeth’s post, I came around to understanding how the ultrasound procedure is a rape and maybe more comparable to rape as a weapon of war.
No, it’s coerced. You might as well argue that someone with a gun to their face is consenting because they could just choose to be shot.
And requiring payment is not the same thing: a provider can require payment because they can’t be coerced or forced into providing a procedure against their will. But this isn’t something the provider is requiring: it’s the state interfering.
If someone wanted to stick this in me by force with no medical necessity, you can bet your ass I’m screaming sexual assault.
One problem here is the more fuss thats made about it, the more it helps the Republicans, as people will be even more scared by it than they might have otherwise been.
I wonder if it might be more effective to say this is a terrible thing in principle, but in practise can be made manageable for people with the right doctor?
Otara
“Shush now. If you speak up it’ll upset others, and we don’t want that, do we?”
Im not saying ‘shush’, Im saying consider who you’re really helping if the procedure gets demonised too much. The whole point of it is to make abortion scarier than it currently is.
I think its possible to ‘speak up’ without helping them with that aim. It doesnt mean saying nothing.
Otara
Except to a lot of women, and not just women who’ve suffered sexual violence, it is that scary.
But even if it’s not scary, it would still be wrong, and I agree with **Otara **that we shouldn’t lose sight of that: if they changed the law to where you had to have an abdominal ultrasound, it would still be medically unneeded and still a bad law.
Vaginal ultrasounds are a bit of a red herring: they add significant insult to the injury this law does, and suggest that some Virgina lawmakers are flat-out spiteful, but removing that one thing wouldn’t fix the law. And so focusing arguments on just how terrible the procedure is seems counter-productive it creates the possibility that a “compromise” law would remove just that one aspect, which misses the point.
How many women actually find this process ‘that scary’ though? It should of course be zero, but if its say 1% vs 80%, that would change things quite a bit in my view, in regards to how much you’re potentially helping the wrong people.
And I can imagine the fallback position being external ultrasound, which would maintain the ‘look a real baby’ shtick they’re really focussing on, while making it look like they’re ‘compromising’ and those nasty baby-killers arent.
On preview I see Manda Jo has beaten me to that point. Edit: As in I read her point but have somehow just copied it entirely when I thought I was being brilliant and original in some way that now entirely escapes me.
Otara
See, Der Trihs, this is why you need to learn the value of moderating your rhetoric: not doing so opens debates up to this kind of distracting bullcrap.
External ultrasound is not invasive, however, and it is medically necessary. It’s got nothing to do with compromise or making the woman feel bad (she doesn’t have to see the image herself).
I’ll type this very slowly and in all caps, so one can’t miss the point.
IT. IS. DISINGENUOUS. TO. CALL. IT. “CONSENT.” WHEN. THE. SO-CALLED. “CONSENT.” IS COERCED.
And just to be crystal clear, this IS, without any room to debate the issue, a COERCED “consent.”
No, abdominal (“external”) ultrasound is NOT medically necessary. Not for routine abortions in healthy women with uncomplicated pregnancies. It’s not medically necessary and it’s not routinely done. Only if the doctor has some reason to believe that there’s a problem she needs to know about (like a bifurcate uterus or something), then perhaps an ultrasound will be ordered. But not routinely, no.
No you might not. I’m not even going to bother explaining why bringing a gun into the equation is not the same.
Whether or not you call it consent and whether or not you disagree it is still not non-consensual. Many medical procedures are required in order to undergo another. The fact that it’s sticking something in a vagina or the fact that it’s decided by state legislature does not affect the definition of non-consensual.
If I want to vote (and exercise my right to vote) I have to give certain information, such as my name and address. Am I being coerced into giving up that information? You can call it that if you want, but then you’ve watered down the meaning of coercion so much it’s not automatically wrong to coerce. Or maybe this is a better analogy, how about I decide to fly to another country. As I pass through security I can and may be searched. Is that assault? Or is it simply accepted that I can either got on the plane and be searched or avoid the search and miss my plane? YES that search is more justified but justification doesn’t affect the definition of coercion.
Feel free to reply with more caps and punctuation, if it makes you feel better.
It would often be necessary to determine foetal age and thus the kind of abortion or to confirm that it’s not a twin pregnancy or ectopic.
Nope, not often. It’s not necessary because the type of abortion isn’t based on the weeks gestation, but the size of the uterus. If the fundal height is near the size it gets in the later half of the second trimester, the doctor might decide she should to do a D&C instead of a vacuum aspiration or medical abortion. A tape measure and palpation will tell her that. These cases would be the vast minority of abortions; D&C is only done for 2.4% of abortions in the US.
I don’t believe that’s a concern for an abortion. The uterine contents are expelled, one fetus or two.
Which would only be performed if there were symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy, like pain or bleeding. Women are not routinely screened with ultrasound to see if the pregnancy is ectopic, whether they’re continuing the pregnancy or seeking an abortion.
Because trying to do so would only underline how wrong you are.
This isn’t “required”. This is a matter of forcing a ritual humiliation on any woman who wants an abortion. By your “logic” it wouldn’t be coercion if the legislature demanded that pregnant women submit to gang rape by its male members before getting an abortion. That’s pretty close to what they are doing, after all.
:smack:
Well… it is required. Required is a perfectly good neutral word. Replacing it with emotive language like “ritual humiliation” is pointless. The whole point of the thread is that the ultrasound is required. If it weren’t there would be no debate.
You could say the same thing for airport security. “It would be coercion if the legislature demanded that passengers submit to gang rape before getting on a flight… therefore searches are assault, because if we replace them with gang rape it becomes bad.”
“It is rape because, after all, it’s pretty close to being gang rape”.
Exactly. Rape is less a sexual act and more of a demonstration of power. In this case the Virginia Mullahs have exercised their power.
In the case of women who have been raped, this might as well have been called, the “Get raped twice law”.