Home Non Cigar Related

State Sponsored RAPE bill passes in Virginia

phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,347 ✭✭✭
..So after the few years of the GOP running around yelling about Obama's health legislation on how it was the govt taking over medicine, the govt coming between "you" and your doctor and so on, they go a head and keep trying to tell a woman what they can and cannot do with their own body. If it wasn't this crap about contraception, now the GOP has passed legislation (currently waiting to be signed by the Gov) that would REQUIRE a woman to have an ultra sound before getting an abortion. I mean women, who mostly that get abortions early on (within the first few months) will have to get penetrated by a probe against their will and even their doctors because the GOP passed some legislation.

http://news.yahoo.com/virginias-abortion-law-state-sanctioned-rape-094400707.html

The party of hypocrisy never stops, wtf is with them and their followers. I really wish an amendment got attached that was proposed by a female legislator that was trying to get males to get a rectal exam when they wanted any pills to help with their erection problems. Seems to me that perhaps males getting erections would be most important for a woman to get pregnant. And while the GOP are trying to stop any form of abortion, they are trying to keep woman from getting any contraception. This all makes sense.
«1

Comments

  • big chunksbig chunks Posts: 1,607
    I agree, I mean it's old men knowing what's good for women, it's crazy
  • DynaguyDynaguy Posts: 51
    You guys are 100% correct. Its this kind of crap that made me leave the Republican Party. In spite of saying they want the government off your back, nothing could be further from the truth.
  • DirewolfDirewolf Posts: 3,493
    Keep my roads and bridges in shape.. stay the *** out of people's bodies.
  • cabinetmakercabinetmaker Posts: 2,560 ✭✭
    Why is it always "a woman's body"? There's a baby there too. Like it or not, you can't ignore that fact. I think the baby finds the abortion far more "invasive" than the ultrasound. My son no larger than a pinto bean the first time I saw his heart beat. Its not just about the woman.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    phobicsquirrel:
    ..So after the few years of the GOP running around yelling about Obama's health legislation on how it was the govt taking over medicine, the govt coming between "you" and your doctor and so on, they go a head and keep trying to tell a woman what they can and cannot do with their own body. If it wasn't this crap about contraception, now the GOP has passed legislation (currently waiting to be signed by the Gov) that would REQUIRE a woman to have an ultra sound before getting an abortion. I mean women, who mostly that get abortions early on (within the first few months) will have to get penetrated by a probe against their will and even their doctors because the GOP passed some legislation.

    http://news.yahoo.com/virginias-abortion-law-state-sanctioned-rape-094400707.html

    The party of hypocrisy never stops, wtf is with them and their followers. I really wish an amendment got attached that was proposed by a female legislator that was trying to get males to get a rectal exam when they wanted any pills to help with their erection problems. Seems to me that perhaps males getting erections would be most important for a woman to get pregnant. And while the GOP are trying to stop any form of abortion, they are trying to keep woman from getting any contraception. This all makes sense.
    An ultra sound is not a probe. A little gel, place an instrument on her belly, and she can see her baby. Got a problem with that? I have a problem with me paying for her to have a free abortion because she can't keep her legs shut. And you find this political????
    I'm not telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. I just don't feel like I have to pay for her mistakes against my will. Don't go there squirrel!
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat Posts: 8,822 ✭✭✭✭✭
    beatnic:
    An ultra sound is not a probe. A little gel, place an instrument on her belly, and she can see her baby. Got a problem with that? I have a problem with me paying for her to have a free abortion because she can't keep her legs shut. And you find this political????
    I'm not telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. I just don't feel like I have to pay for her mistakes against my will. Don't go there squirrel!
    Gotta say I'm with Beatnic at this point, at least about the part where I have to pay. On the other hand, I'm with Squirrel about the Rep want to run my life
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed.  If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." --  Mark Twain
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    beatnic:
    phobicsquirrel:
    ..So after the few years of the GOP running around yelling about Obama's health legislation on how it was the govt taking over medicine, the govt coming between "you" and your doctor and so on, they go a head and keep trying to tell a woman what they can and cannot do with their own body. If it wasn't this crap about contraception, now the GOP has passed legislation (currently waiting to be signed by the Gov) that would REQUIRE a woman to have an ultra sound before getting an abortion. I mean women, who mostly that get abortions early on (within the first few months) will have to get penetrated by a probe against their will and even their doctors because the GOP passed some legislation.

    http://news.yahoo.com/virginias-abortion-law-state-sanctioned-rape-094400707.html

    The party of hypocrisy never stops, wtf is with them and their followers. I really wish an amendment got attached that was proposed by a female legislator that was trying to get males to get a rectal exam when they wanted any pills to help with their erection problems. Seems to me that perhaps males getting erections would be most important for a woman to get pregnant. And while the GOP are trying to stop any form of abortion, they are trying to keep woman from getting any contraception. This all makes sense.
    An ultra sound is not a probe. A little gel, place an instrument on her belly, and she can see her baby. Got a problem with that? I have a problem with me paying for her to have a free abortion because she can't keep her legs shut. And you find this political????
    I'm not telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. I just don't feel like I have to pay for her mistakes against my will. Don't go there squirrel!


    The bill that pased in Virginia requires that a probe be inserted into the **** in order to perform an ultrasound. This procedure is purely political, and definately not medically necessary. It MANDATES that women be penetrated with a medical device to perform an internal ultrasound whether they want one or not. It IS rape. No conservative who favors this bill can ever again criticize any aspect of "Obama-Care" as being too intrusive by government, without becoming a hyporcite.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    JDH:
    beatnic:
    phobicsquirrel:
    ..So after the few years of the GOP running around yelling about Obama's health legislation on how it was the govt taking over medicine, the govt coming between "you" and your doctor and so on, they go a head and keep trying to tell a woman what they can and cannot do with their own body. If it wasn't this crap about contraception, now the GOP has passed legislation (currently waiting to be signed by the Gov) that would REQUIRE a woman to have an ultra sound before getting an abortion. I mean women, who mostly that get abortions early on (within the first few months) will have to get penetrated by a probe against their will and even their doctors because the GOP passed some legislation.

    http://news.yahoo.com/virginias-abortion-law-state-sanctioned-rape-094400707.html

    The party of hypocrisy never stops, wtf is with them and their followers. I really wish an amendment got attached that was proposed by a female legislator that was trying to get males to get a rectal exam when they wanted any pills to help with their erection problems. Seems to me that perhaps males getting erections would be most important for a woman to get pregnant. And while the GOP are trying to stop any form of abortion, they are trying to keep woman from getting any contraception. This all makes sense.
    An ultra sound is not a probe. A little gel, place an instrument on her belly, and she can see her baby. Got a problem with that? I have a problem with me paying for her to have a free abortion because she can't keep her legs shut. And you find this political????
    I'm not telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. I just don't feel like I have to pay for her mistakes against my will. Don't go there squirrel!


    The bill that pased in Virginia requires that a probe be inserted into the **** in order to perform an ultrasound. This procedure is purely political, and definately not medically necessary. It MANDATES that women be penetrated with a medical device to perform an internal ultrasound whether they want one or not. It IS rape. No conservative who favors this bill can ever again criticize any aspect of "Obama-Care" as being too intrusive by government, without becoming a hyporcite.
    If that is truly the case for that particular State mandate, I stand corrected. However, arguing against that "intrusive conservative policy" means little to me when you then try to justify the killing of an unborn baby. Bring it on.
  • jsnakejsnake Posts: 5,979 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Murder is murder. You don't like it keep your legs shut or your *** in your pants.
  • jsnake:
    Murder is murder. You don't like it keep your legs shut or your *** in your pants.
    Agreed!
  • So, I've seen the instrument used to perform this and read testimonials of those that have had it done and this is completely blown out of proportion. Gizmodo.com has a decent article on the actual device. The technology is far more accurate in determining the age of the embryo. I don't believe in abortion and I see no need to get into a debate about it. Its all been said. I don't consider a prostate exam to be rape and nor should this. Use birth control and it wont be an issue.
  • cabinetmakercabinetmaker Posts: 2,560 ✭✭
    A probe is required to see them when they're very tiny. They have a heart, you can see it beating. I mean you gotta at least show her her baby's heart beating before you murder the child, right? Kinda like looking them in the eye before you stick the knife in the gut...
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    beatnic:
    JDH:
    beatnic:
    phobicsquirrel:
    ..So after the few years of the GOP running around yelling about Obama's health legislation on how it was the govt taking over medicine, the govt coming between "you" and your doctor and so on, they go a head and keep trying to tell a woman what they can and cannot do with their own body. If it wasn't this crap about contraception, now the GOP has passed legislation (currently waiting to be signed by the Gov) that would REQUIRE a woman to have an ultra sound before getting an abortion. I mean women, who mostly that get abortions early on (within the first few months) will have to get penetrated by a probe against their will and even their doctors because the GOP passed some legislation.

    http://news.yahoo.com/virginias-abortion-law-state-sanctioned-rape-094400707.html

    The party of hypocrisy never stops, wtf is with them and their followers. I really wish an amendment got attached that was proposed by a female legislator that was trying to get males to get a rectal exam when they wanted any pills to help with their erection problems. Seems to me that perhaps males getting erections would be most important for a woman to get pregnant. And while the GOP are trying to stop any form of abortion, they are trying to keep woman from getting any contraception. This all makes sense.
    An ultra sound is not a probe. A little gel, place an instrument on her belly, and she can see her baby. Got a problem with that? I have a problem with me paying for her to have a free abortion because she can't keep her legs shut. And you find this political????
    I'm not telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. I just don't feel like I have to pay for her mistakes against my will. Don't go there squirrel!


    The bill that pased in Virginia requires that a probe be inserted into the **** in order to perform an ultrasound. This procedure is purely political, and definately not medically necessary. It MANDATES that women be penetrated with a medical device to perform an internal ultrasound whether they want one or not. It IS rape. No conservative who favors this bill can ever again criticize any aspect of "Obama-Care" as being too intrusive by government, without becoming a hyporcite.
    If that is truly the case for that particular State mandate, I stand corrected. However, arguing against that "intrusive conservative policy" means little to me when you then try to justify the killing of an unborn baby. Bring it on.
    I have never "justified the killing of an unborn baby." Never. Ever.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    phobicsquirrel:
    ..So after the few years of the GOP running around yelling about Obama's health legislation on how it was the govt taking over medicine, the govt coming between "you" and your doctor and so on, they go a head and keep trying to tell a woman what they can and cannot do with their own body. If it wasn't this crap about contraception, now the GOP has passed legislation (currently waiting to be signed by the Gov) that would REQUIRE a woman to have an ultra sound before getting an abortion. I mean women, who mostly that get abortions early on (within the first few months) will have to get penetrated by a probe against their will and even their doctors because the GOP passed some legislation.

    http://news.yahoo.com/virginias-abortion-law-state-sanctioned-rape-094400707.html

    The party of hypocrisy never stops, wtf is with them and their followers. I really wish an amendment got attached that was proposed by a female legislator that was trying to get males to get a rectal exam when they wanted any pills to help with their erection problems. Seems to me that perhaps males getting erections would be most important for a woman to get pregnant. And while the GOP are trying to stop any form of abortion, they are trying to keep woman from getting any contraception. This all makes sense.
    wow.
    what an amazing twist of words on so many levels here squirrel.

    though i am what most would call pro choice i hardly consider an ultrasound "rape" i mean, seriously. thats **** nuts to make that comparison. in that Doctor's office, if the woman does not want an ultrasound, she can turn it down if she choses and also not get an abortion. OR waid a few more weeks and get an external ultrasound and THEN have the abortion. that is in no way rape.

    (edit: i had not read the probe mandate at this point, however that is addressed in my next post)

    the government shouldnt force ultrasounds.
    what you are classifying stupidly as "rape" is an attempt by the republicans to get women to think about their actions before they kill their otherwise healthy, viable, unborn baby. though i am against that requirement i feel that the actions of the republicans at least have some thought behind them. the force they are imposing is to have as much information about the baby as they can before they kill it.



    as far as the contraception thing goes, you fell for what the media told you hook line and sinker. you are a fool for believing it. there has not been a single republican, candidate or representative that has come out in favor of banning all contraception. NOT ONE.
    in fact, many have come out on record saying that it would be very unwise to do so. (but you wont see that on the media these days)
    the republicans ARE trying to keep the government from forcing religious institutions to act against their religious beliefs. that is all.

    congrats squirrel. you posted the most uninformed post ever.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    JDH:
    No conservative who favors this bill can ever again criticize any aspect of "Obama-Care" as being too intrusive by government, without becoming a hyporcite.
    i disagree with this statement. the two are not the same and the bills both have major flaws. you can agree with one and still disagree with the other.
    you statement can also be turned around quite easily to, "no liberal who favor Obama care can ever criticize this bill as being too intrusive by the government without becoming a hypocrite"

    they are both invasive and force individuals to do things they would otherwise not do.
    both bills are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.

    ...and the probe thing... they are about to have a different probe up their **** anyway. the woman knows that she is gunna have stuff up there before she walks in. kinda renders that point moot... doesnt it?
  • VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    Kuzi there is no reason to call his opinion uninformed. It was some fact and some opinion, but no less informed than anyone else posting

    It is a probe Beat, and it does go into the ****. I dont know if thats "rape" per se, but if the woman doesnt want it----sure sounds like something similar. I may not be a professional hisotrian here, but didnt Roe v Wade alllow abortion???? I am pro life in most instances..."closing your legs" doesnt really fly for me in the face of incest, rape, and some other issues----but I see the points, I just disagree. While I do not approve of abortions, the high court and majority of people feel they should be allowed and it shouldnt even be an issue anymore. Its just smoke and mirrors to make people forget about things we really can change

    I understand the heartbeat, the feeling its a child, ect. However, like it or not it is a fetus and if the mother (and mother alone) wants to terminate it within certain parameters, she has that right. Maybe its wrong...maybe its medical. Maybe she should closed her legs...maybe the guy shouldve worn a condom instead of wanting to get his d!ck wet. I dont know, but I do know that it is protected and even though I disagree (generally) I cannot change it and there are more important things to worry about. Yes, I said that about a "human life" not because I like the idea, but because it will not change and Im tired of my government mandating my morality. Its a medical procedure, no different that making a fat broad go through a series of unneeded tests before she has a lap band, or a vain old man be subjected to unwanted groping prior to a face life. The morality and concept in ones mind may be different, but unwanted/unneeded procedures are what we are talkng about here.
  • VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    kuzi16:
    JDH:
    No conservative who favors this bill can ever again criticize any aspect of "Obama-Care" as being too intrusive by government, without becoming a hyporcite.
    i disagree with this statement. the two are not the same and the bills both have major flaws. you can agree with one and still disagree with the other.
    you statement can also be turned around quite easily to, "no liberal who favor Obama care can ever criticize this bill as being too intrusive by the government without becoming a hypocrite"

    they are both invasive and force individuals to do things they would otherwise not do.
    both bills are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.

    ...and the probe thing... they are about to have a different probe up their **** anyway. the woman knows that she is gunna have stuff up there before she walks in. kinda renders that point moot... doesnt it?
    No it doesnt render it mute. One probe is acheiving something she wants done. The other is intrusive and invasion of her body and not desired. Why should she be subjected to this of she doesnt want----for no medical or safety reason? A man who espouses a belief in personal freedoms shoudl totally understand and agree with this.
  • stephen_hannibalstephen_hannibal Posts: 4,317
    You know the funny part... all you swinging d*cks are debating what goes on with a women in regrades to her body.
    Til a women steps up and says something, one way or the other, this entire argument is pointless.

  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    kuzi16:
    JDH:
    No conservative who favors this bill can ever again criticize any aspect of "Obama-Care" as being too intrusive by government, without becoming a hyporcite.
    i disagree with this statement. the two are not the same and the bills both have major flaws. you can agree with one and still disagree with the other.
    you statement can also be turned around quite easily to, "no liberal who favor Obama care can ever criticize this bill as being too intrusive by the government without becoming a hypocrite"

    they are both invasive and force individuals to do things they would otherwise not do.
    both bills are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.

    ...and the probe thing... they are about to have a different probe up their **** anyway. the woman knows that she is gunna have stuff up there before she walks in. kinda renders that point moot... doesnt it?
    No it doesnt render it mute. One probe is acheiving something she wants done. The other is intrusive and invasion of her body and not desired. Why should she be subjected to this of she doesnt want----for no medical or safety reason? A man who espouses a belief in personal freedoms shoudl totally understand and agree with this.
    first thing:
    not mute
    moot
    i agree that she shouldnt be forced to have it if she does not want it. however, she knows there is going to have all kinds of stuff up there anyway and she knows its gunna happen and she wants that to happen. i have a hard time making the leap to "rape" with that.

    i mean, you and i, and yes, even the squirrel have the same finishing point on this. we dont want the ultrasounds. are we really arguing over if this is rape or not?
    seriously.
    it is a medical procedure that she can avoid if she wants in many ways such as:
    not having an abortion
    moving to a different state before she is pregnant
    not getting pregnant (i know there isnt a choice sometimes in this but often there is)
    adoption


    think of it in terms of the state saying you MUST buy car insurance if you own a car (im against that mandate also). that can be avoided by not buying a car, or moving to a state without that requirement (if there are any), taking the bus instead, etc.
    the argument for that mandate existing opened up the argument for this mandate to exist.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    stephen_hannibal:
    You know the funny part... all you swinging d*cks are debating what goes on with a women in regrades to her body.
    Til a women steps up and says something, one way or the other, this entire argument is pointless.

    not true. individual right are individual rights. men and women have them.
    we (vulchor, the squirrel, jdh, and myself) seem to be arguing over the definition of "rape" not if the bill is a good one or not. i think we (same list) are all against the bill.

    i just have a hard time seeing it as rape when a few moments after the slightly intruding ultrasound happens there is going to be way more intrusive and violent things up there.
  • VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    kuzi16:
    Vulchor:
    kuzi16:
    JDH:
    No conservative who favors this bill can ever again criticize any aspect of "Obama-Care" as being too intrusive by government, without becoming a hyporcite.
    i disagree with this statement. the two are not the same and the bills both have major flaws. you can agree with one and still disagree with the other.
    you statement can also be turned around quite easily to, "no liberal who favor Obama care can ever criticize this bill as being too intrusive by the government without becoming a hypocrite"

    they are both invasive and force individuals to do things they would otherwise not do.
    both bills are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.

    ...and the probe thing... they are about to have a different probe up their **** anyway. the woman knows that she is gunna have stuff up there before she walks in. kinda renders that point moot... doesnt it?
    No it doesnt render it mute. One probe is acheiving something she wants done. The other is intrusive and invasion of her body and not desired. Why should she be subjected to this of she doesnt want----for no medical or safety reason? A man who espouses a belief in personal freedoms shoudl totally understand and agree with this.
    first thing:
    not mute
    moot
    i agree that she shouldnt be forced to have it if she does not want it. however, she knows there is going to have all kinds of stuff up there anyway and she knows its gunna happen and she wants that to happen. i have a hard time making the leap to "rape" with that.

    i mean, you and i, and yes, even the squirrel have the same finishing point on this. we dont want the ultrasounds. are we really arguing over if this is rape or not?
    seriously.
    it is a medical procedure that she can avoid if she wants in many ways such as:
    not having an abortion
    moving to a different state before she is pregnant
    not getting pregnant (i know there isnt a choice sometimes in this but often there is)
    adoption


    think of it in terms of the state saying you MUST buy car insurance if you own a car (im against that mandate also). that can be avoided by not buying a car, or moving to a state without that requirement (if there are any), taking the bus instead, etc.
    the argument for that mandate existing opened up the argument for this mandate to exist.
    Thanks for the correction of my use of the language--- MUCH appreciated, lol. Maybe we are aguring if it is rape or not, maybe we are not. Your point is that shes already getting stuff up her cooch...so whats one more thing. My point is that if she doesnt want it, and it isnt needed medically (which it isnt), it shouldnt be happening. If you want to make the jump, and its not a far one, and substitute an unwanted **** for an unwanted probe it would surely be rape------and since both the probe and **** have the same medical need in this procedure...

    You can avoid just about anything by taking alertnative means to get to a goal----I understand that. Just because we can find ways to make hoops and loops doesnt mean we should. However, just to say that without getting at what the hoops and loops are and why they are being put in place kind of loses the forest for the trees.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    Vulchor:
    kuzi16:
    Vulchor:
    kuzi16:
    JDH:
    No conservative who favors this bill can ever again criticize any aspect of "Obama-Care" as being too intrusive by government, without becoming a hyporcite.
    i disagree with this statement. the two are not the same and the bills both have major flaws. you can agree with one and still disagree with the other.
    you statement can also be turned around quite easily to, "no liberal who favor Obama care can ever criticize this bill as being too intrusive by the government without becoming a hypocrite"

    they are both invasive and force individuals to do things they would otherwise not do.
    both bills are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.

    ...and the probe thing... they are about to have a different probe up their **** anyway. the woman knows that she is gunna have stuff up there before she walks in. kinda renders that point moot... doesnt it?
    No it doesnt render it mute. One probe is acheiving something she wants done. The other is intrusive and invasion of her body and not desired. Why should she be subjected to this of she doesnt want----for no medical or safety reason? A man who espouses a belief in personal freedoms shoudl totally understand and agree with this.
    first thing:
    not mute
    moot
    i agree that she shouldnt be forced to have it if she does not want it. however, she knows there is going to have all kinds of stuff up there anyway and she knows its gunna happen and she wants that to happen. i have a hard time making the leap to "rape" with that.

    i mean, you and i, and yes, even the squirrel have the same finishing point on this. we dont want the ultrasounds. are we really arguing over if this is rape or not?
    seriously.
    it is a medical procedure that she can avoid if she wants in many ways such as:
    not having an abortion
    moving to a different state before she is pregnant
    not getting pregnant (i know there isnt a choice sometimes in this but often there is)
    adoption


    think of it in terms of the state saying you MUST buy car insurance if you own a car (im against that mandate also). that can be avoided by not buying a car, or moving to a state without that requirement (if there are any), taking the bus instead, etc.
    the argument for that mandate existing opened up the argument for this mandate to exist.
    Thanks for the correction of my use of the language--- MUCH appreciated, lol. Maybe we are aguring if it is rape or not, maybe we are not. Your point is that shes already getting stuff up her cooch...so whats one more thing. My point is that if she doesnt want it, and it isnt needed medically (which it isnt), it shouldnt be happening. If you want to make the jump, and its not a far one, and substitute an unwanted **** for an unwanted probe it would surely be rape------and since both the probe and **** have the same medical need in this procedure...

    You can avoid just about anything by taking alertnative means to get to a goal----I understand that. Just because we can find ways to make hoops and loops doesnt mean we should. However, just to say that without getting at what the hoops and loops are and why they are being put in place kind of loses the forest for the trees.
    This Virginia bill is an example of REALLY BIG GOVERNMENT intruding (literally, not figuratively) into the lives of individuals. Conservatives have consistently used the argument that "Obama-Care" is an example of BIG GOVERNMENT intruding in the lives of individuals. You can't have it both ways. You are either for BIG GOVERNMENT intrusion, or you aren't. It should not matter if the intrusion supports another political agenda or not. Supporting it for one purpose but opposing it for another purpose is hypocritical.
  • VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    agreed jdh
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    Regarding the government mandate to purchase Auto insurance in order to use an automobile; for those of you who believe that this is unconstitutional, think about what would happen to auto insurance and auto repair costs if it were not in place. Both costs would skyrocket, much like what has happened to the cost of healthcare and health insurance in this country.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    JDH:
    This Virginia bill is an example of REALLY BIG GOVERNMENT intruding (literally, not figuratively) into the lives of individuals. Conservatives have consistently used the argument that "Obama-Care" is an example of BIG GOVERNMENT intruding in the lives of individuals. You can't have it both ways. You are either for BIG GOVERNMENT intrusion, or you aren't. It should not matter if the intrusion supports another political agenda or not. Supporting it for one purpose but opposing it for another purpose is hypocritical.
    this is very true. they way i read your statement the first time was as one is ok and the other isnt. there are reasons that you could disagree with one and not the other, but if "big government" was one of those reasons then you are correct. clearly i have stated that i am against both, and it seems that you are just pointing out how it could be hypocritical.
    that too is true.

  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    JDH:
    Regarding the government mandate to purchase Auto insurance in order to use an automobile; for those of you who believe that this is unconstitutional, think about what would happen to auto insurance and auto repair costs if it were not in place. Both costs would skyrocket, much like what has happened to the cost of healthcare and health insurance in this country.
    i disagree. if insurance was not mandatory then it would FALL in cost because the insurance companies would be forced to make you see that it is worth you purchasing. auto repair costs would fall because people would know what it costs to actually fix something instead of the attitude of "who cares, my insurance will cover it"
    when people dont pay attention to the cost of something and dont care about how much it costs, the price will go up.

    health insurance is one of the reasons for the high price of medical treatment.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    kuzi16:
    JDH:
    Regarding the government mandate to purchase Auto insurance in order to use an automobile; for those of you who believe that this is unconstitutional, think about what would happen to auto insurance and auto repair costs if it were not in place. Both costs would skyrocket, much like what has happened to the cost of healthcare and health insurance in this country.
    i disagree. if insurance was not mandatory then it would FALL in cost because the insurance companies would be forced to make you see that it is worth you purchasing. auto repair costs would fall because people would know what it costs to actually fix something instead of the attitude of "who cares, my insurance will cover it"
    when people dont pay attention to the cost of something and dont care about how much it costs, the price will go up.

    health insurance is one of the reasons for the high price of medical treatment.
    Nearly all economists agree that the individual mandate for Auto Insurance has made insurance costs for drivers affordable, and has helped to lower repair costs as well. Without the mandate, nearly 50% of insurance policies would be dropped, and costs to the insurers for those left carrying insurance would go up. The increase in costs for insurers would then be passed on to their customers. Insurance was originally conceived by Ben Franklin, who literally invented homeowners fire insurance. Read a little about the history and theory of Insurance, and the fact that without near universal coverage, our medical costs are going to continue to escalate will become clear. That's why the Heritage Foundation originally proposed the individual mandate for medical insurance as a way to achieve universal coverage (and to therefore control the inflation in the cost of medical care) without the government doing it via a single payer system.
  • VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    dont try jdh-----common sense doesnt always work here
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat Posts: 8,822 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    Maybe we are aguring if it is rape or not, maybe we are not. Your point is that shes already getting stuff up her cooch...so whats one more thing. My point is that if she doesnt want it, and it isnt needed medically (which it isnt), it shouldnt be happening. If you want to make the jump, and its not a far one, and substitute an unwanted **** for an unwanted probe it would surely be rape------and since both the probe and **** have the same medical need in this procedure...

    .
    quick question here, is someone holding this woman down and doing this? Is she tied up? Was she drugged and surprised with these events? Gun to her head?

    or, did she request a procedure be done that has far-reaching consequences, knowing that some kind of intervention was going to take place inside her body? In which case, the question of "rape" does indeed seem to be rendered moot.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed.  If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." --  Mark Twain
  • VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    Define Rape Amos-------If it is an unwanted act by another person involving the genitals or sexual organs of the person being touched......then yes it is, since it has NO MEDICAL NEED. If it is defined differently, perhaps then it is not rape. What it is however is unwanted, unnecessary, and intrusive without any just medical reason. You cannot talk about what an abortion is, or what is used for this or that-----the probe itself is in individual act, separate for other acts, and should be treated as such to determine if it is needed or wanted.
Sign In or Register to comment.