It doesn't trivialize anything. Women are forced to endure having a large, painful wand shoved up their vagina for no medical reason in order to get medical services. Forced penetration is rape. You're trivializing the probe because your feelings were hurt, when actually rape victims will have to endure another forced penetration in order to get medical services if this thing is signed into law.

" Instead, since there's somehow debate over baseless vilifying (my bad earlier, this is the word I needed) of people on the other side of the aisle, we're debating that."

Yes, because the hordes of redbaiting anti-communists posting here who serially psychoanalyze their opponents have any moral authority to speak about that.

No, this is just another red herring in your large arsenal of red herrings. Find any excuse you like for engaging in these diversionary tactics. I'll remember them next time you engage in 'baseless vilification' and don't sufficiently discriminate individuals from their group affiliations.

What's the big fuss about? All of these bills are still far from being laws. I'll bet these are just for show so that the politicians in one house can shore up their pro-life credentials, and the bill quietly dies in the other. Or gets vetoed by the governor. Even if the starts aligned and something like this passed, it's far from a sure thing something like mandatory probes for clearer pictures would get out of the 10th Circuit, let alone the Supreme Court.

But, as has been said before, this thread probably has an agenda totally separate from the immediate issue of these bills.

stars aligned

"for clearer pictures"

You're so full of it. What's the fuss about? Yes, because Republicans are so skittish when it comes to implementing reactionary and restrictive anti-abortion laws, laws which they've already passed all over the country.

And the Circuit Courts & Supreme Court have been such a big help in stopping them, right? Of course. You are the same person who said Santorum had no chance of becoming the Republican nominee so nobody should worry about his bizarre views on the Crusades.

Your own articles says only three states have ultrasound laws. Just two years or so ago North Dakota, NORTH DAKOTA, didn't pass a referendum severely restricting abortions. And just a few months ago Mississippi rejected a personhood at conception law.

There's a middle ground between no abortions at all and any abortion anytime. This is where the vast, vast majority of the American people are (including women). Perhaps you can't accept that, but then again you can't even accept that North Korea is a bad place.

"You are the same person who said Santorum had no chance of becoming the Republican nominee so nobody should worry about his bizarre views on the Crusades."

I think I said president, and I definitely said if you were to worry about him then worry about his stance on gays, not an opinion on a thousand year old war. But hey, why miss an opportunity to libel me?

"There's a middle ground between no abortions at all and any abortion anytime. This is where the vast, vast majority of the American people are (including women)"

The 'middle ground' has been destroyed by your party, which has passed a heartbeat bill in my own state. They have passed a litany of restrictive anti-abortion laws across the country. Florida in particular. Your party has been waging a full frontal assault on even the idea of women having access to contraception. And you're telling us there is nothing to worry about.

"But hey, why miss an opportunity to libel me?"

Yeah, libel. Because what you just described is so different than what I said you said.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/07/map_record_numb.html

Nothing to see here.

Abortion isn't contraception. Call a spade a spade.

What's the point? You love abortion unconditionally and nothing anyone says will even allow you to see their position, let alone change your mind or soften your opinion.

I have to call out the whole "it's a bill, not a law, and it probably won't pass" argument here. Even if it doesn't pass, it displays an absolutely shocking lack of respect for women. Even if it doesn't pass, we have politicians who think that issues that impact on womens' bodies, and womens' health are political tools to score points and shore up conservative credibility with, rather than issues to be considered in their own right. And we're supposed to be reassured by this that women are being respected? Bullshit. BULL SHIT.

Also "There's a middle ground between no abortions at all and any abortion anytime. This is where the vast, vast majority of the American people are (including women)" - The appeal to popularity is is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so." Sorry, you're going to need to justify, on non-religious grounds, the sort of middle of the road level restrictions that "most Americans" favour, before you can make this argument.

"I like how none of you men bother discussing the vaginal probe"

Very first post I said I disagreed with this, as I think everyone does. I've stated my position, what's yours Putin? When does life begin? If the baby's head is sticking out and the baby is crying is it still an option to abort? What about the first 10 days or so? The head is oddly shaped so I suppose you could make a case for it no?

And really? Anti-choice? So I suppose I can call you anti-life and that's just fine, right?I support the choice to NOT have sex and to take proper precautions if you do, and to be prepared to deal with the consequences if those precautions either aren't taken or don't work.

As far as your friend that had a problem with blood clots and birth control. Again, choice not to have sex. Also, sex can have equally troublesome health affects on both men and women.

One last thing, I'm not a Republican. Stop with the generalizations. The leaders passing these laws are retarded, I don't think you realize that no one is arguing for them. As a Democrat I've voted for Obama, pro choice, McCarthy, pro choice, Schumer and Gillibrand, both pro choice. I don't consider this the most important issue in the world, and yes part of that is because I am a man.

However, to say that men have 0 part in this is ridiculous. I haven't had to deal with this issue. The reason, I've abstained from sex and will until I am either married or have the financial capability to be prepared for the occurrence. That's not me taking a moral high ground, I'm simply stating that your points are just as ridiculous to me as mine seem to be to you.

When does life begin? About 4 billion years ago with single celled organisms less complex than even the simplest bacteria. Somehow I don't think you mean "life", patizcool, or you'd refrain from washing your hands. I think you mean human life, which means you're imbuing humanity itself with some special quality, rather than evaluating the characteristics of human life, which is characterized by sentience, sapience and self awareness, which, I feel I should point out, a fetus is not.

And I'm sorry, if your relationship with the woman who you got pregnant is such that she will take your opinion into account, that's between you. But if no such relationship exists, then you don't get any say at all in what medical decisions she makes about her body, and why the hell should you? She doesn't even have to tell you she was pregnant.

And yeah, just the complete dismissal this specific issue that Putin is trying to raise is pretty frankly shocking. The absolute most anyone has deigned to notice this has been to say "yeah it's dumb but never mind that, I'd rather complain about something else." Umm, excuse me? Someone is suggesting that women should have medical devices inserted in their vaginas for no medically relevant reason, and the most anyone can say when pressed to comment on that is "I guess that's kinda dumb". It's not just dumb, it's absolutely fucking outrageous. It's infuriating, it's sexist, it's cruel, it's misogynist, it's disgusting and it's just plain wrong in every single way. I feel like someone else should be mad about this.

"Abortion isn't contraception. Call a spade a spade.

What's the point? You love abortion unconditionally and nothing anyone says will even allow you to see their position, let alone change your mind or soften your opinion."

I see you've ceased trying to make sense and are instead just going to repeat "Yer for abortion" 100 times instead of address anything. Typical.

"Very first post I said I disagreed with this, as I think everyone does. I've stated my position, what's yours Putin? When does life begin?"

Yes, your tactic, as Mafia pointed out, is to say "yeah that'd dumb but you hurt the feelings of 'reasonable' anti-choice people like me" and then now you're insinuating I support infanticide.

That's why the notion of a 'reasonable' anti-choice person is nonsense. Inevitably, they equate any opposition to women being treated like chattel to support for infanticide. Inevitably, they break out their sanctimonious attacks on 'irresponsible' women. Inevitably, they break out their nonsense about how somehow men are oppressed unless they get to dictate the reproductive health choices of women.

"As far as your friend that had a problem with blood clots and birth control. Again, choice not to have sex."

This is where lose all credibility of being 'reasonable'.

Have risk of blood clots? Tough beans, then you can never have sex without fear of pregnancy. Your choices are stroke + birth control , pregnancy & no birth control, or perpetual virginity.

How about we reject these "choices" offered by sanctimonious male vaginal dictators like you and say that women can have control over their own reproductive health. Thanks.

the choice not have sex disregards the fact that humans are designed to have sex (those that evolved without a sex drive didn't reproduce, not surprisingly)

Sex is good, it has proven health benefits, made people feel happy, and you should have it.

Sure you can make another choice, but that may not be the healthiest thing to do. (and being in a loving relationship has also been shown to have health benefits, at least for the men concerned... i think being married has not been shown to have the same positive impact on women's health - women tend to be healthier if they have female friends/family supporting them... odd that)

@Mafialligator
If self awareness is the characteristic that defines humanity, then certainly I can go into a hospital and just massacre the newborns. They have no more self awareness than would a fetus.

@orathaic
I'm not railing against sex. It's a good, beautiful thing. However, there are certain consequences that come with it as well as pleasures. I don't personally believe abortion to be a reasonable method of birth control. I think once the cells have begun multiplying, there is a human life that you would be ending with an abortion, and as someone who would not be able to 1. financially support a child and 2. not have a say in whether that baby is carried to term, I choose not to have sex until both of those are reversed (2. only to the extent that I am married or in a serious relationship in which the issue has already been discussed).


@Putin
You can never have sex without fear of pregnancy, period. One of the great things about planned parenthood is that they can help you to design a schedule around your period so that there is about the same risk of pregnancy as when you take birth control. No, you can't have sex every day of the month without likely getting pregnant, but you are not sentenced to blood clot, unwanted pregnancy or perpetual virginity as you would have us believe.

One more thing, it is nearly impossible to take you seriously. I am trying to have a real argument here, but your rhetoric is so outlandishly foolish or misguided that it is nearly impossible to respond to you. I am not the Republicans making these laws. Should I be infuriated? Maybe, but that's not going to do anything to change the laws. SOPA and PIPA were both ridiculous proposals as is the new defense act that basically waves habias corpus, but me getting infuriated didn't do shit to stop SOPA and PIPA and it won't do anything to stop the defense act from being executed. SO let me leave you with similar rhetoric so you can at least get some sense of how ridiculous you look to me and I'm pretty sure the majority of people that have read your posts whether they agree with you or not.

You baby killing infanticide loving liberal! You would have the entire male population succumb to females as an inferior sex and live for the sole purpose of reproducing female offspring to continue to perpetuate the new world order you so desperately desire in which females not only have their say, but say everything!*

*note, not my actual beliefs, said simply to illustrate a point

@ patizcool - "If self awareness is the characteristic that defines humanity, then certainly I can go into a hospital and just massacre the newborns. They have no more self awareness than would a fetus." - I've heard that argument so many times, do you really think I don't have a reply to it? Obviously there is a moral imperative not to kill newborns, the difference between killing a newborn and performing an abortion is that killing a newborn that has already been given birth to is that it doesn't affect a woman's right to choose. You can't just go around killing things willy nilly, even if they don't have what would count as human consciousness, without a good reason.

Also @ patizcool - "You can never have sex without fear of pregnancy, period." Can't you? I certainly can. I do know what you mean, however, you can't engage in heterosexual, penis-in-vagina intercourse without some risk of pregnancy. OK, fair enough, I can't eat a meal without SOME risk of choking, I can't cross the street without some risk of being hit by a car. Most of the time we'd just say chew your food carefully, look both ways before crossing. You can be as careful as you want, but sometimes, shit still happens, and when it does, I'm comforted to know there's medical care for me. Why is it the only option with sex is "FOR CHRIST'S SAKE DON'T DO IT!"?

Here are my two cents (which I know are going to be ignored): "The woman baring the child is by far the most important person in each case, followed by the child's father. After those two I don't see any difference in the value of any person's opinion, be they man or woman. We all have a stake in our society."

The way I understand the issue is, pro-lifers believe that the foetus deserves a say in the matter. And seeing as how a foetus can't make an informed decision, they decide that the foetus would always decide to survive. Am I understanding anything wrong so far?

Well, given that the foetus cannot make an informed decision, it could be argued that a foetus is not a sapient being. Now, unless I'm mistaken in my logic somewhere, sapience (I may be getting the term confused with sentience), is one of the key components to what makes humans well, human. Taking that into consideration, it could be argued that an unborn foetus isn't a person at all, negating the moral dilemma, as I see it.

Granted, that does nothing to handle the pro-life question, but like I said, this is just my opinion.

Onar - the question is, as always, where you draw the line between sentient and not sentient.

I think that my point was that the line is drawn at the point where one can decide for oneself. Though, that leads to the contraversial point of view that a person isn't "human" (regarding sentience = humanity) until several years old. I can already see the negative implications of this idea. Not to mention how difficult it is to prove something like this. How does one prove that another even thinks or feels or has the capacity for decision-making in the first place?

See, this is where arguments like sentience and stuff go so horribly wrong. Suddenly all the focus is once again on the fetus, and no one pays any attention to the woman who has to live with the damn thing inside her. Whether or not the baby has agency is a relevant question, it doesn't, and this means that if there's another moral imperative at question, it takes precedence. It does not mean that we can just wantonly kill anything and everything that isn't self aware.

Also this tendency speaks volumes to the priorities of the pro-life movement. You say you're trying to protect a woman's right to choose and they say, "yes but choice is less important than the moral imperative not to kill people". And you say "fetuses aren't people, they have none of the characteristics of people". And then they say "so can I just kill newborns for no reason then?" I'm sorry, where did no reason come from? Did I not just say the whole point of abortion is to give women the right to choose what happens to their bodies. I mean, it seems to me that the pro life movement values the idea of a woman choosing what happens to her body at about the same level as just doing shit for no reason.

So where would the pro-choice lobby draw the foetocide (the correct mediacal term) line? Or would logic dictate that there should be no line drawn at all? Just one of those things that 20- 21 week old pre-mature babies/foetus' are currently looked after in incubators. Humpty dumpty anyone?

We've had this debate before. What they look like is totally irrelevant. It's not a person, so there's no moral conflict in terminating a pregnancy.
Also I don't know about the correct mediacal term, but I think you'll find the correct medical term is abortion, or termination of pregnancy, not foetocide. Foeticide is a legal term, not a medical one