It isn't rape to require that woman undergo a harmless medical procedure in order to procure an abortion. It's needless and invasive, and a violation of the same right to privacy that protects abortion in the first place... but it's not rape.

Calling it rape does not help the argument.

Leaving aside, for the moment, that believing in such a concept as "deserved rape" is itself a poignant case for the legalization of retroactive abortion.

It is not 'harmless', it is painful. This is why men should get the hell out of legislating on women's health issues. They have no idea what they're talking about 90% of the time. The recent Santorum flap on prenatal testing demonstrates this conclusively. As does the Foster Friess "aspirin between the knees" bs. Totally clueless.

The vaginal probe meets the FBI definition of rape, which is vaginal penetration without consent. I mean the doctor isn't even ordering these probes, it is state-mandated rape.

I guess the right wants government so small it can fit into a woman's vagina. That's the only way anybody can take their nonsense about limited government seriously.

The question is, how much pain, humiliation and infantilization of women is the so-called "pro-life" (but anti-prenatal care) movement willing to countenance. Do they really think a 10-15% gender gap in voteshare is a good strategy for victory. Do you they really think women are going to put up with their war on women's health for much longer?

Nobody who calls himself (and I use himself deliberately) "pro-life" can oppose testing which reduces maternal and infant mortality. No, you just hate women, period.

BTW, that definition is the following, please explain how these vaginal probes do not meet the definition. "It's not rape" is not an argument.

"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.”

How would there not be consent? Unless doctors are suddenly going to stop following their own ethical codes en masse after this bill is passed, they notify their patients of what procedures they're going to do prior to doing them so that the patient can decline to submit to the procedures if s/he doesn't wish to submit to them.

Like Viktyr said, it's needless, invasive, and a violation of that same right to privacy, but it's quite clearly not rape, and sensationalizing the issue like this is the reason why your thread got hijacked for a while in the first place.

And because it will probably need restating, no, I'm not defending the probing at all, as it is, indeed, needless, invasive, and a violation of privacy. Nor do I think it's remotely fair that women should be forced to undergo it in order to get an abortion.

But unless you're assuming medical malpractice suddenly occurring everywhere, the doctors will notify women what they are legally required to undergo if they seek an abortion. They would be giving full, informed consent to the procedure, ergo, it would not fit your supplied definition of rape.

Doctors aren't ordering the procedure. The state is. The state orders it regardless of what the doctors feels/says or thinks. The idea that it's not rape because there is "choice" about getting an abortion is a fallacious argument. Women do not want to be inflicted with this medically unnecessary procedure in order to get an abortion. Mandating painful penetration in order for women to get medical services is rape. You can whine about tone all you want. The NOW thinks it's rape. They know better than you.

I didn't say doctors were ordering it, Putin. I said that doctors are required to inform their patients before performing medical procedures unless they absolutely cannot due to extenuating emergency circumstances (which aren't going to happen in the case of pre-abortion procedures like these).

And no, it is not fallacious to say that since there is, indeed, complete, absolute and unhindered choice to consent or not to consent to an abortion and any pre-abortion procedures such as this ultrasound probe, that a patient who seeks to undergo them, having been notified and informed to the reasonable extent required by medical ethics codes, is indeed consenting to the procedures. And, having clearly established legal consent, the argument that it is legally rape collapses.

I understand women don't want to have to undergo this bullshit procedure. I also understand they shouldn't have to undergo this bullshit procedure. That doesn't mean it's rape if, knowing - and being fully informed of the fact that - there is an unwanted and unnecessary procedure involved in getting an abortion, a woman agrees to undergo the procedure and has the abortion.

I'm rather confused by your statement about mandating painful penetration to get medical services. Is it rape if a woman consents to a C-section despite wishing to deliver without C-section, if the doctor believes the C-section will make for a safer delivery? I understand this is not a perfect analogy, but the point is still made, as a C-section involves not only painful penetration but also painful laceration, which means it is more damaging than this probe could ever be, and in a lot of cases it's not truly necessary at all. But your insufficiently-nuanced declarations are so framed as to make a C-section rape. I would suggest revising.

Finally, your appeal to authority is unsubstantiated at best and baseless at worst. Nothing about the NOW inherently endows them with some ability to interpret the definition of rape that I cannot also have, and you have not demonstrated to any conclusive logical extent how my understanding of the definition you supplied is wrong.

@Eden -
Don't bother. He won't *ever* admit he was wrong and is just looking to get reactions out of people. I've finally realized that Putin doesn't believe half the shit he spews out of his pie hole, but he loves to get people riled up and will be intentionally obtuse when given clear evidence that his statements are patently false and his "opinion" misinformed if it keeps the argument going.

He knows it legally isn't rape. He knows there is a choice and informed consent involved with removes it form the realm of rape. He only brought up NOW knowing that they are a highly controversial feminist group that would get people going. And he espouses them as an authority on law despite the fact that the majority of them are feminist reactionaries who wouldn't know a law book if it fell off a library shelf and hit them in the head.

So, I wouldn't even bother to argue with Putin anymore on that.

PE, I know this is your prerogative, but since you're involved, allow me:
http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/thriller/25.gif

@PE, et al

If a law was passed that mandated all men get a 12" dildo shoved up their ass when they went to get a physical, would it be "rape" or would you "chose" not to go to the doctor any more?

abgemacht - recognize that I'm only arguing that it technically doesn't fall under the definition of rape due to the existence of full and informed consent. likewise, your hypothetical would similarly not fall under that definition. if there is a problem here, I would redirect you to the question of the definition itself.

that said, I suspect that as the probe serves a medical purpose - unnecessary and intrusive, but actually does do something - whereas it is indeed rather difficult to imagine a useful medical purpose for dildo explorations, the situations are not legally or logically analogous. (and before that gets construed as "lol PE is k with sodomizing women but not men," if abge's hypothetical is extended to women, my argument still holds)

and before this gets construed as "lol PE wants to sodomize ppl," I've been opposed to this probe and would be just as opposed to The Dildo Amendment were it ever suggested, so don't get on my case about supporting this law in any way, shape or form, I'm simply pointing out from what I can best interpret the law to mean that the supplied definition of rape is insufficient in this case

Let's make it a more fair comparison. If a law was passed that I had to have a prostate exam with some new and larger instrument everytime I went to have a physical, I'd put up with the exam because Iknow it serves a purpose amd I wouldn't consider it rape. But I'd probably have *fewer* physicals.

Ummm I'm sorry, coercing people into having things inserted inside their vaginas in rape. This isn't like, an exaggeration, or a metaphor. If a doctor says, "I refuse to perform a medical procedure unless you let me insert things in you." that is coercion. And that is exactly what doctors are being forced to say here.

Now if the probe was medically necessary, if, due to some complication, the only way to safely or effectively perform an abortion would be to use the probe first, that would be a different argument. But even then I'm not sure the doctor, in the normal course of events, has the right to refuse to perform the procedure, so long as the patient was informed of risks of having a probeless abortion.

In lieu of a response, please just read Mafia's post.

Let's all keep in mind that this isn't a law and almost certainly never will be. Calm down.

I've already responded to that point I believe. Obviously it would be worse if it were a law, but the fact that there are legislators who think this kind of shit is OK still demonstrates an absolutely appalling lack of respect for women.

@Invictus

That's a rather stupid thing to say. If no one does anything until it becomes a law, it's too late.

I'll bet it doesn't even get out of the other house of the legislature. Even if it did, I doubt the governor would sign it. Even if he did, it wouldn't stand up in court. Even if it did, it would be appealed. Even if it went all the way to the Supreme Court I doubt they would hear it. Even if they did I doubt it would be upheld. And all along the way the law would not be enforced.

@ invictus, As I've said 100 times before, even if that's true, a society where a bill like this can pass even one house of the legislature is still an appallingly sexist society. Why has this not sunk in. Even if you're right, the fact that someone sat down and said, "you know what's a good idea, inserting ultrasound probes in women's vaginas for no especially good reason" IS A BAD THING. That the senate saw fit to pass the bill (by a wide margin I might add) is bad in and of itself, even if it doesn't have a hope in hell in the House. That we are having this discussion at all is the symptom of a serious problem with our society. And people like you who look at this kind of appalling sexism and say "yeah but we probably won't have to worry about it so whatevs", are part of the problem.

I just disagree. If something isn't going to happen I see no reason to worry about it.

OK

1 I don't share your optimism. But fair enough, for the sake of argument, I'll grant you the point that this bill will never become law.

2 The bill isn't going to not become law in a void. It's going to not become law because people would get upset about it if it did. If we all react with a shrug and a "it won't become law" and no one cares really, guess what? It's going to become law.

3 Attitudes matter. Not as much as actions it's true, but attitudes do still matter. We need to condemn the attitudes behind this kind of sexist bullshit. We can't just say "well you have no respect for women, but that's OK, because you'll never end up writing a law reflecting that". I'm sorry, it is unacceptable for someone to have views like that about women. Even if they don't get to act out their sexism, that people THINK sexist things is still a problem. And also that's a ridiculous counterfactual anyway. Sexists really actually do get to act out their sexism. A lot.

Well, I don't agree with the premise that this is rape or that this is sexism to begin with. I just think it's stupid. They don't want the ultrasound just for the sake of shoving something up a woman, they want it so that she's presented with very clear pictures of the fetus in the hopes that it changes her mind. It's not a lack of respect for women, at least not in their eyes, it's a deep belief that abortion is wrong all the time and that seeing her child will be enough to make a mother change her mind. That's a dumb idea, but it isn't sexism. And it isn't going to actually happen.

Well you're just straight up wrong about that. It is sexism, I think the argument that an insulting, paternalistic attempt to protect women from their own choices isn't sexism is either misguided and ill considered, or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue. Perhaps you don't know what sexism is?

Actually, if this did ever become law *and* it somehow survived all the challenges along the way, you would find doctors who started performing procedures "off the books" are declaring the child to have been miscarried or some other means of skirting the law anyhow.

That's doesn't surprise me at all Draugnar, and good on them, but obviously, LEGAL abortion is still a preferable situation.

Oh, absolutely. I'm pro-life after a certain point in the development and p[ro-choice up to that point. Basically, first trimester, the woman can do what she wants. After that, she clearly had a commitment at one point as she can't reasonably expect someone to believe she didn't know she was pregnant until she was more than three months along, and she should be obligated to fulfill that commitment.

Most post first trimester abortions are performed as a result of medical conditions or complications that put the health of the mother at risk.

Also have you ever been pregnant? How do you propose to find out? People don't just do random pregnancy tests. And you don't show THAT much after one trimester. You can say women who are pregnant will stop getting their period, but that's not exactly airtight either. If a woman is on the pill and it's working, she could very well stop getting her period. If she's on the pill, and it's NOT working...she could still very well end up not getting her period.

And to whom has she made a commitment? And who the hell has the right to extract a commitment about a woman's body from her?