My question is Does she have a choice? Can she turn around a walk out? Is the procedure she's requesting necessary? To procede without her consent would conceivably, in fact certainly fall under the heading of rape. To consent to the procedure negates the "rape" aspect of the whole thing, doesn't it?
in fact the whole quesiton of the genital region is involved, well, that's where what you're looking for is. As to rape, if some guys held a person down and **** in her/his ear, well, that'd be rape.
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
Ejacing in someones ear sounds like a good prank at a party------but I digress, sorry
Yes, she has a choice of course, and I see your point there. I guess better stated would then be the simple question of why must it be done since it is not needed? If something isnt needed (or wanted) and done anyway thats is my issue. Consenting to the procedure shoudl not include said probing, as there is no reason for it. Yet, (under this law) without agreeing to the probe you cannot have the procedure. Mr. Keller and his Catch 22 is really ringing in my ears right nos
Let me ask this question if anyone knows, and to add another layer here. Is said probe to see the fetus and such required in instance of incest and rape as well..that is to say for all abortions?
Ejacing in someones ear sounds like a good prank at a party------but I digress, sorry
Yes, she has a choice of course, and I see your point there. I guess better stated would then be the simple question of why must it be done since it is not needed? If something isnt needed (or wanted) and done anyway thats is my issue. Consenting to the procedure shoudl not include said probing, as there is no reason for it. Yet, (under this law) without agreeing to the probe you cannot have the procedure. Mr. Keller and his Catch 22 is really ringing in my ears right nos
Let me ask this question if anyone knows, and to add another layer here. Is said probe to see the fetus and such required in instance of incest and rape as well..that is to say for all abortions?
Yeah, I'm with you as long as it's stated this way, there was just too much semantic baggage attached to the "rape" label. On the second question, I'd assume so, a fetus is a fetus and not to blame for any of this. Of course, you know what assume breaks down into...
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
Holding someone down is not the defining definition of rape. Making woman have something inserted in them against their wishes is. Sure one could say she shouldn't have had sex, however that was her decision. Abortion is a RELIGIOUS issue not a common sense issue. If abortion was outlawed then woman would do what they did before it was legal and more problems would occur.
I fine it F*ucked up when people are all about the fetus but when it comes to the mother they couldn't care about her. Not to mention the kid as most of the people against CHOICE are all about keeping contraception hard to get and against any welfare services. A lot of woman who have abortions usually do it because they either don't want a kid or can't support it. However if they are forced to keep it then the social services would skyrocket however as most that are against abortion try to pass laws that cut that funding. So now we have many more kids in a poor environment. Then years later a lot of these PRO LIFE people are all about wars and killing others. It's a F*cked up thing.
If any laws are passed they should not have any men involved, woman are the one's who should do it, that's it.
Its just smoke and mirrors to make people forget about things we really can change
.
Here is the true beating heart of this issue. Being manipulated into hyperbolic frenzy by the connotations of the word "rape".
So, by the way, you missed the other point, Squirrel. Simply being held down is certainly not rape, but if the subject in my illustration were you, or someone you love, and you were sexually objectified against your will whether it be your ear, your armpit, or your jeans pockets, wouldn't you feel you'd been "raped"?
As for the medical procedure in question, well, should I sue my gastroenterologist for my colonoscopy? I guess so, because by your definition, I've been raped. Consent forms be damned, get me James Sokolove on the phone...
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
Holding someone down is not the defining definition of rape. Making woman have something inserted in them against their wishes is. Sure one could say she shouldn't have had sex, however that was her decision. Abortion is a RELIGIOUS issue not a common sense issue. If abortion was outlawed then woman would do what they did before it was legal and more problems would occur.
I fine it F*ucked up when people are all about the fetus but when it comes to the mother they couldn't care about her. Not to mention the kid as most of the people against CHOICE are all about keeping contraception hard to get and against any welfare services. A lot of woman who have abortions usually do it because they either don't want a kid or can't support it. However if they are forced to keep it then the social services would skyrocket however as most that are against abortion try to pass laws that cut that funding. So now we have many more kids in a poor environment. Then years later a lot of these PRO LIFE people are all about wars and killing others. It's a F*cked up thing.
If any laws are passed they should not have any men involved, woman are the one's who should do it, that's it.
Are you serious? You think we should use abortion as population/costs controls? Do you have any children, Squirrel?
"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"
Personally, I think life begins at successful potty training. Luckily our daughter got in before the cut-off date, or else it was off to the scientific experiment lab for her!
As Ive said here before Squirrel, I dont understand why more of the Right Wing fiscal conservatives do not advocate abortion...even prefer it. A good percent of the women having them would indeed end up on (or already on) welfare which means their children will be more likely to be "leeches" off the system as well. It stands to reason with less of these unmentionables around, the less burden on the economy and tax payer, WHICH is good for business and afterall....The Business of America is Business.
Last time my wife had an ultrasound it didn't have anything to do with a probe. Completely non invasive. And I'm one of those guys that doesn't agree with the whole "It's my body crap" It's a baby not a thing. And definatley not considered her body.
Its just smoke and mirrors to make people forget about things we really can change
.
Here is the true beating heart of this issue. Being manipulated into hyperbolic frenzy by the connotations of the word "rape".
So, by the way, you missed the other point, Squirrel. Simply being held down is certainly not rape, but if the subject in my illustration were you, or someone you love, and you were sexually objectified against your will whether it be your ear, your armpit, or your jeans pockets, wouldn't you feel you'd been "raped"?
As for the medical procedure in question, well, should I sue my gastroenterologist for my colonoscopy? I guess so, because by your definition, I've been raped. Consent forms be damned, get me James Sokolove on the phone...
Well this is the thing. Sure being probed isn't something most of us want to be done other then when having sex. However if say you need to have something done due to a medical procedure even though you didn't want it, due to the "medical" reason it wouldn't be rape. However if a person is being forced to have said procedure done than it would technically be a rape depending on how you want to define rape. The whole issue is how these pro-"fetus"-life people want to impose their "beliefs" on to everyone, via law. That is it.
Holding someone down is not the defining definition of rape. Making woman have something inserted in them against their wishes is. Sure one could say she shouldn't have had sex, however that was her decision. Abortion is a RELIGIOUS issue not a common sense issue. If abortion was outlawed then woman would do what they did before it was legal and more problems would occur.
I fine it F*ucked up when people are all about the fetus but when it comes to the mother they couldn't care about her. Not to mention the kid as most of the people against CHOICE are all about keeping contraception hard to get and against any welfare services. A lot of woman who have abortions usually do it because they either don't want a kid or can't support it. However if they are forced to keep it then the social services would skyrocket however as most that are against abortion try to pass laws that cut that funding. So now we have many more kids in a poor environment. Then years later a lot of these PRO LIFE people are all about wars and killing others. It's a F*cked up thing.
If any laws are passed they should not have any men involved, woman are the one's who should do it, that's it.
Are you serious? You think we should use abortion as population/costs controls? Do you have any children, Squirrel?
Huh? I never said that I'm for abortion. Just because I advocate for a person's right to choose doesn't make me for abortion. I don't think abortion is all that great, however it isn't my choice. Like how it isn't my choice if my brother wants to marry a man, or my sister wants to marry a woman, or be with her. It's their choice. If a woman wants to have an abortion than that is her decision, I mean after all being pregnant and having to give birth is no easy thing.
Now in terms of my "view" on people and population control, I don't think you want to know. I really think that a mass genocide wouldn't hurt. However we really don't need it as it seems so many countries want to keep doing their wars.
If abortion is every illegal in this country than there should be a serious debate over it, not just some "religious" idea or excuse. If the majority of people of this country want to do it than sure but there needs to be some ways to help woman not get pregnant. I mean a lot of the same people who advocate for NO Abortions are against birth control and condoms. Which makes no sense, I mean wtf? But on the other hand, when we talk about people that pass the laws of this country, and those people are so for the sanctity of life (fetus) they have no problem using teenagers and our men and woman in our military for war. They send these people into wars without any regard to them or the people who they will be killing. I mean a lot of these lawmakers lied this country into a war and then a lot of them are pushing hard for another war with IRAN. It's all the GOP candidates are talking about even though the experts are saying, ARE YOU NUTS!
Hell, I don't care if someone has an abortion. Sometimes it is the proper alternative. I know close, and I mean close, friends who have. I am familiar with the psychological issues that follow, also. It should be the absolute last choice. But, free for the asking? Used as contraception? Have you noticed that HHS and Planned Parenthood never put up a fight for legislation to provide women with free pre and postnatal care, or free childbirth? They make their money on abortions. Its' a regular chop shop. The whole Catholic/contraception issue is about state vs religion. Make no mistake about it. What if the administration had complaints that the local kosher deli wasn't providing pork? Should they make the Deli go against their religious tenet? Pork is healthy, you know, the other white meat. If they complain, tell them the government will provide the pork in an in-store kiosk so they don't have to touch it. Or what if they forced all Islamic restaurants to do the same? Slippery slope brother. As to the probe, yeas its a lame law, but calling it rape is just grandstanding. have a cigar.
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.
interesting theory here.
not that im trying to bring in the health care issue, but there is other historical evidence that shows that the cost of health insurance always went up disproportionately when the government got involved (medicaid, medicare) and again went up after things like annual check ups and routine visits were covered. insurance is, and never has been designed to cover things you expect. of course you know this, being that you read about the history of insurance. once it started acting like something it was not designed to do, the cost went up.
now the government has stepped in and forced insurance to cover more things that it wasnt designed to cover and the price, as i expected, has gone up again.
think what you want about insurance, the obamacare plan will not cut any costs, it will only cut some peoples out of pocket. that is putting a giant bandage on an even larger problem.
you dont have to disagree with me on this. the plan is already in the law books. I cant change that. you will see as the health care system slowly eats itself just what i am talking about. its already started. i know what your prediction is from what you have posted above. you dont need to restate it. ... heck, i may not even needed to state mine.
its just time to sit back and watch just how inefficient the government is, and will be.
...and the heritage foundation should never have supported an government mandate if they claim they want to keep government out of our lives. im not sure what made them change their minds. dont know if i care.
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.
interesting theory here.
not that im trying to bring in the health care issue, but there is other historical evidence that shows that the cost of health insurance always went up disproportionately when the government got involved (medicaid, medicare) and again went up after things like annual check ups and routine visits were covered. insurance is, and never has been designed to cover things you expect. of course you know this, being that you read about the history of insurance. once it started acting like something it was not designed to do, the cost went up.
now the government has stepped in and forced insurance to cover more things that it wasnt designed to cover and the price, as i expected, has gone up again.
think what you want about insurance, the obamacare plan will not cut any costs, it will only cut some peoples out of pocket. that is putting a giant bandage on an even larger problem.
you dont have to disagree with me on this. the plan is already in the law books. I cant change that. you will see as the health care system slowly eats itself just what i am talking about. its already started. i know what your prediction is from what you have posted above. you dont need to restate it. ... heck, i may not even needed to state mine.
its just time to sit back and watch just how inefficient the government is, and will be.
...and the heritage foundation should never have supported an government mandate if they claim they want to keep government out of our lives. im not sure what made them change their minds. dont know if i care.
Insurance is based on shared risk. This is not theory, it is fact. Insurance costs go down when the risk involved is difused over the largest possible pool of people who are covered. Costs go up when the risk is shared by a smaller group. This is not theory, it is simple economics as applied to the insurance industry.
BTW, the US is the only country in the "developed world" that places the burden of health insurance coverage on employers, which puts US businesses at a tremendous disadvantage when competing in the global marketplace. The Heritage Foundation recognized that our healthcare system must be reformed, and they supported the individual mandate in preference to universal coverage (Medicare for everybody), because by requiring everyone to buy into private insurance markets, the healthcare system remains in the private sector. The Insurance companies will just have to do their job, and insure everybody, and spread the risk instead of cherry picking the population and opting to only insure healthy people, which is good for profits, but horrible for those with health care needs.
Very true JDH. Truth is often pushed under the ruge though, as wel all know. Profits are huge for insurance companies, Dr.s can charge more, prices of everything go up-----the only thing that doesnt is real wages for about 95% of America. To think the Insurance Companies and their lobbyists have you or I in mind, or even the remotest thought of "keeping us healthy" is bordering on lunacy.
Smoke and mirrors again is all it is. Saw it last night in the debate where it was stated by Newt the Snoot or Religious Ricky that Obama wants to raise taxes on the top percentage of wage earners----but he wants to lower taxes for everybody. LOLLLLLL. The thing is, the majority of voters would love to see the rich pay more taxes, maybe not the hard core righties, but the majority of voters. However, they have to make it sound like an issue for everyone to take up, and of course to appease the wealthy so they keep making their large donations to campaigns. The who thing makes me want to puke...or worse.
the only problem with having the top half pay all the taxes is that the bottom half are not paying any at all. 49.5% of all wage earners pay no income taxes. that same 49.5% collect the vast majority of all government handouts. so the bottom half have now voted themselves the upper half's money. this is theft pure and simple.
put it this way: lets say there are 10 people in an isolated community, and 9 of them have $1000 but one guy has $10,000. lets also assume that one guy that has $10,000 has not violated any rights to obtain that money. one of the 9 other guys says to the rich guy "hey, i want some of your money" The rich guy has no obligation to give the other guy that money. he has earned it fair and square. it is his and he has the right to do with it whatever he wants. if that one guy who asked the rich guy for cash then pulls a gun and tell him to fork over the money or its "curtains" for him, then the poor guy has violated the rights of the rich guy. that is clearly theft. If that one poor guy asks the rest the community to gather and have a vote on the topic of taking the rich guys money and giving it to those who "need" it, it is clear that the poor people are going to vote themselves the cash. at this point, since there is no enforcing entity (government) the rich guy shouldnt hand over the cash. just because everyone wants his money, doesnt mean that it isnt violating his rights. it means that the community has voted that his rights dont mean anything to them.
if that same community votes a president and that president is that poor guy that initially asked for the cash and the new "government" enforces a vote by the end of a gun, the rich guys rights are still being violated.
now, dont misconstrue this as a rant about how ALL taxes are evil and inherently violate rights.
there are some "just" taxes. those taxes are ones that are used to uphold the rights of the individual (police, military, judges, etc...). Every civil society needs laws to ensure the rights of the individuals living in that society.
Ben Franklin did say it best: When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
...and that is what is happening. we are at that tipping point. Voting for the rich to pay more will only exacerbate the problem.
.
Insurance is based on shared risk. This is not theory, it is fact. Insurance costs go down when the risk involved is difused over the largest possible pool of people who are covered. Costs go up when the risk is shared by a smaller group. This is not theory, it is simple economics as applied to the insurance industry.
not 100% true. if you add a huge pool of people that get into accidents on a regular basis you will actually increase the cost. you dont have to explain insurance to me. my family deals in health, life, and disability. i understand it quite well. if there is a small pool of people that never have an accident there will be lower premiums than a larger pool with many more people percentage wise getting into accidents.
JDH:
BTW, the US is the only country in the "developed world" that places the burden of health insurance coverage on employers, which puts US businesses at a tremendous disadvantage when competing in the global marketplace. The Heritage Foundation recognized that our healthcare system must be reformed, and they supported the individual mandate in preference to universal coverage (Medicare for everybody), because by requiring everyone to buy into private insurance markets, the healthcare system remains in the private sector. The Insurance companies will just have to do their job, and insure everybody, and spread the risk instead of cherry picking the population and opting to only insure healthy people, which is good for profits, but horrible for those with health care needs.
the problem with this is again a rights violation issue. and right now the health insurance system is so incredibly regulated that it is actually casusing an increas in insurance costs, not a decrease. it is being forced to do things that insurance was not designed or intended to do. covering a pre-existing condition is not "shared risk" the "risk" does not exist. this is a shared cost. and it has to be made up somewhere. earlier in this post i made the point of a pool with a higher accident rate... this is that higher accident rate. it WILL happen. there is no risk, only added cost.
Not to take away from your discussion JDH and Kuzi, but just FYI to all, it looks like they've amended the bill and removed the part about the invasive vaginal ultrasounds due to the backlash/uproar. CLICK Antlantic Wire Article Here CLICK NY Times Article Here
Holding someone down is not the defining definition of rape. Making woman have something inserted in them against their wishes is. Sure one could say she shouldn't have had sex, however that was her decision. Abortion is a RELIGIOUS issue not a common sense issue. If abortion was outlawed then woman would do what they did before it was legal and more problems would occur.
I fine it F*ucked up when people are all about the fetus but when it comes to the mother they couldn't care about her. Not to mention the kid as most of the people against CHOICE are all about keeping contraception hard to get and against any welfare services. A lot of woman who have abortions usually do it because they either don't want a kid or can't support it. However if they are forced to keep it then the social services would skyrocket however as most that are against abortion try to pass laws that cut that funding. So now we have many more kids in a poor environment. Then years later a lot of these PRO LIFE people are all about wars and killing others. It's a F*cked up thing.
If any laws are passed they should not have any men involved, woman are the one's who should do it, that's it.
Are you serious? You think we should use abortion as population/costs controls? Do you have any children, Squirrel?
Huh? I never said that I'm for abortion. Just because I advocate for a person's right to choose doesn't make me for abortion. I don't think abortion is all that great, however it isn't my choice. Like how it isn't my choice if my brother wants to marry a man, or my sister wants to marry a woman, or be with her. It's their choice. If a woman wants to have an abortion than that is her decision, I mean after all being pregnant and having to give birth is no easy thing.
Now in terms of my "view" on people and population control, I don't think you want to know. I really think that a mass genocide wouldn't hurt. However we really don't need it as it seems so many countries want to keep doing their wars.
If abortion is every illegal in this country than there should be a serious debate over it, not just some "religious" idea or excuse. If the majority of people of this country want to do it than sure but there needs to be some ways to help woman not get pregnant. I mean a lot of the same people who advocate for NO Abortions are against birth control and condoms. Which makes no sense, I mean wtf? But on the other hand, when we talk about people that pass the laws of this country, and those people are so for the sanctity of life (fetus) they have no problem using teenagers and our men and woman in our military for war. They send these people into wars without any regard to them or the people who they will be killing. I mean a lot of these lawmakers lied this country into a war and then a lot of them are pushing hard for another war with IRAN. It's all the GOP candidates are talking about even though the experts are saying, ARE YOU NUTS!
If same sex partners decide to marry one another, you are correct, it is both their personal choice and a decision made by 2 parties. However, in the case of the baby that has no voice at all pre and post birth, where is their choice? To me, it's no different to kill a child during the first week of pregnancy than it is to kill a child the first week after birth. They are both still alive at both points, dependent on their mother at both points. A one week old child, cannot be neglected or it will die and that can also be said for a child a week after conception. I think it's safe to say that no one would deem it okay to kill a one week old baby, so why should it be okay to kill a baby a week after conception? While I don't agree with unnatural same sex marriages or relationships just as much as I don't agree with abortion, same sex relationships are a choice between 2 parties. Abortion is a choice made by only one of the 2 parties involved. I agree with the comments made that the "probe" is part of a choice to have the abortion. The mother could also choose against abortion and avoid the "probe" altogether. I also agree with the the comment "have a cigar".
Yeah, I'm with you as long as it's stated this way, there was just too much semantic baggage attached to the "rape" label.
Got to agree with you on this one Amos. I've been reading and not saying much because it's a pretty hard topic, a topic I don't imagine we'll solve on this thread.
I can't call this rape. I'll call it wrong. I'll disagree with the law. But "rape" is not justified. I looked up the legal definition of rape and the site I found, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape, shows that most states have very similar to West Virginia's, which is the state they use as the example. It had this to say:
"In West Virginia, a person commits sexual assault in the second degree by engaging in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person without that person's consent, and the lack of consent results from forcible compulsion. Forcible compulsion is (1) physical force that overcomes such earnest resistance as might reasonably be expected under the circumstances; (2) threat or intimidation, either express or implied, placing the victim or another person in fear of death, bodily injury, or Kidnapping; or (3) fear by a person under 16 years of age caused by intimidation by another person who is at least four years older than the victim."
Resistance is the key to rape! If there exists an open door for you to walk out of, it just isn't rape. It's something else. Something not right, unlawful, unconstitutional, whatever you want to label it, but just not rape.
the only problem with having the top half pay all the taxes is that the bottom half are not paying any at all. 49.5% of all wage earners pay no income taxes. that same 49.5% collect the vast majority of all government handouts. so the bottom half have now voted themselves the upper half's money. this is theft pure and simple.
put it this way: lets say there are 10 people in an isolated community, and 9 of them have $1000 but one guy has $10,000. lets also assume that one guy that has $10,000 has not violated any rights to obtain that money. one of the 9 other guys says to the rich guy "hey, i want some of your money" The rich guy has no obligation to give the other guy that money. he has earned it fair and square. it is his and he has the right to do with it whatever he wants. if that one guy who asked the rich guy for cash then pulls a gun and tell him to fork over the money or its "curtains" for him, then the poor guy has violated the rights of the rich guy. that is clearly theft. If that one poor guy asks the rest the community to gather and have a vote on the topic of taking the rich guys money and giving it to those who "need" it, it is clear that the poor people are going to vote themselves the cash. at this point, since there is no enforcing entity (government) the rich guy shouldnt hand over the cash. just because everyone wants his money, doesnt mean that it isnt violating his rights. it means that the community has voted that his rights dont mean anything to them.
if that same community votes a president and that president is that poor guy that initially asked for the cash and the new "government" enforces a vote by the end of a gun, the rich guys rights are still being violated.
now, dont misconstrue this as a rant about how ALL taxes are evil and inherently violate rights.
there are some "just" taxes. those taxes are ones that are used to uphold the rights of the individual (police, military, judges, etc...). Every civil society needs laws to ensure the rights of the individuals living in that society.
Ben Franklin did say it best: When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
...and that is what is happening. we are at that tipping point. Voting for the rich to pay more will only exacerbate the problem.
.
I'll stick to my word and remain out of political discussions. My "word" is the only thing I've got that cannot be tainted by any individual...only by my own words.
I'll stick to my word and remain out of political discussions. My "word" is the only thing I've got that cannot be tainted by any individual...only by my own words.
Nicely said laker. I suppose some people feel the need to have discussions like this but the mis-information and lack of knowledge saddens me.
Not to take away from your discussion JDH and Kuzi, but just FYI to all, it looks like they've amended the bill and removed the part about the invasive vaginal ultrasounds due to the backlash/uproar. CLICK Antlantic Wire Article Here CLICK NY Times Article Here
Right. The Gov. of Virginia realized that youcan't have it both ways. He's on record being against "intrusive" searches conducted by the TSA at airports, and he realized that the State should not be mandating body cavity probes without reason.
I'll stick to my word and remain out of political discussions. My "word" is the only thing I've got that cannot be tainted by any individual...only by my own words.
Nicely said laker. I suppose some people feel the need to have discussions like this but the mis-information and lack of knowledge saddens me.
Not to take away from your discussion JDH and Kuzi, but just FYI to all, it looks like they've amended the bill and removed the part about the invasive vaginal ultrasounds due to the backlash/uproar. CLICK Antlantic Wire Article Here CLICK NY Times Article Here
Comments
in fact the whole quesiton of the genital region is involved, well, that's where what you're looking for is. As to rape, if some guys held a person down and **** in her/his ear, well, that'd be rape.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Yes, she has a choice of course, and I see your point there. I guess better stated would then be the simple question of why must it be done since it is not needed? If something isnt needed (or wanted) and done anyway thats is my issue. Consenting to the procedure shoudl not include said probing, as there is no reason for it. Yet, (under this law) without agreeing to the probe you cannot have the procedure. Mr. Keller and his Catch 22 is really ringing in my ears right nos
Let me ask this question if anyone knows, and to add another layer here. Is said probe to see the fetus and such required in instance of incest and rape as well..that is to say for all abortions?
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I fine it F*ucked up when people are all about the fetus but when it comes to the mother they couldn't care about her. Not to mention the kid as most of the people against CHOICE are all about keeping contraception hard to get and against any welfare services. A lot of woman who have abortions usually do it because they either don't want a kid or can't support it. However if they are forced to keep it then the social services would skyrocket however as most that are against abortion try to pass laws that cut that funding. So now we have many more kids in a poor environment. Then years later a lot of these PRO LIFE people are all about wars and killing others. It's a F*cked up thing.
If any laws are passed they should not have any men involved, woman are the one's who should do it, that's it.
So, by the way, you missed the other point, Squirrel. Simply being held down is certainly not rape, but if the subject in my illustration were you, or someone you love, and you were sexually objectified against your will whether it be your ear, your armpit, or your jeans pockets, wouldn't you feel you'd been "raped"?
As for the medical procedure in question, well, should I sue my gastroenterologist for my colonoscopy? I guess so, because by your definition, I've been raped. Consent forms be damned, get me James Sokolove on the phone...
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Personally, I think life begins at successful potty training. Luckily our daughter got in before the cut-off date, or else it was off to the scientific experiment lab for her!
Now in terms of my "view" on people and population control, I don't think you want to know. I really think that a mass genocide wouldn't hurt. However we really don't need it as it seems so many countries want to keep doing their wars.
If abortion is every illegal in this country than there should be a serious debate over it, not just some "religious" idea or excuse. If the majority of people of this country want to do it than sure but there needs to be some ways to help woman not get pregnant. I mean a lot of the same people who advocate for NO Abortions are against birth control and condoms. Which makes no sense, I mean wtf? But on the other hand, when we talk about people that pass the laws of this country, and those people are so for the sanctity of life (fetus) they have no problem using teenagers and our men and woman in our military for war. They send these people into wars without any regard to them or the people who they will be killing. I mean a lot of these lawmakers lied this country into a war and then a lot of them are pushing hard for another war with IRAN. It's all the GOP candidates are talking about even though the experts are saying, ARE YOU NUTS!
The whole Catholic/contraception issue is about state vs religion. Make no mistake about it. What if the administration had complaints that the local kosher deli wasn't providing pork? Should they make the Deli go against their religious tenet? Pork is healthy, you know, the other white meat. If they complain, tell them the government will provide the pork in an in-store kiosk so they don't have to touch it. Or what if they forced all Islamic restaurants to do the same? Slippery slope brother. As to the probe, yeas its a lame law, but calling it rape is just grandstanding.
have a cigar.
not that im trying to bring in the health care issue, but there is other historical evidence that shows that the cost of health insurance always went up disproportionately when the government got involved (medicaid, medicare) and again went up after things like annual check ups and routine visits were covered. insurance is, and never has been designed to cover things you expect. of course you know this, being that you read about the history of insurance. once it started acting like something it was not designed to do, the cost went up.
now the government has stepped in and forced insurance to cover more things that it wasnt designed to cover and the price, as i expected, has gone up again.
think what you want about insurance, the obamacare plan will not cut any costs, it will only cut some peoples out of pocket. that is putting a giant bandage on an even larger problem.
you dont have to disagree with me on this. the plan is already in the law books. I cant change that. you will see as the health care system slowly eats itself just what i am talking about. its already started.
i know what your prediction is from what you have posted above. you dont need to restate it. ... heck, i may not even needed to state mine.
its just time to sit back and watch just how inefficient the government is, and will be.
...and the heritage foundation should never have supported an government mandate if they claim they want to keep government out of our lives.
im not sure what made them change their minds. dont know if i care.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/02/22/georgia-vasectomy-ban_n_1293369.html
BTW, the US is the only country in the "developed world" that places the burden of health insurance coverage on employers, which puts US businesses at a tremendous disadvantage when competing in the global marketplace. The Heritage Foundation recognized that our healthcare system must be reformed, and they supported the individual mandate in preference to universal coverage (Medicare for everybody), because by requiring everyone to buy into private insurance markets, the healthcare system remains in the private sector. The Insurance companies will just have to do their job, and insure everybody, and spread the risk instead of cherry picking the population and opting to only insure healthy people, which is good for profits, but horrible for those with health care needs.
Smoke and mirrors again is all it is. Saw it last night in the debate where it was stated by Newt the Snoot or Religious Ricky that Obama wants to raise taxes on the top percentage of wage earners----but he wants to lower taxes for everybody. LOLLLLLL. The thing is, the majority of voters would love to see the rich pay more taxes, maybe not the hard core righties, but the majority of voters. However, they have to make it sound like an issue for everyone to take up, and of course to appease the wealthy so they keep making their large donations to campaigns. The who thing makes me want to puke...or worse.
put it this way:
lets say there are 10 people in an isolated community, and 9 of them have $1000 but one guy has $10,000.
lets also assume that one guy that has $10,000 has not violated any rights to obtain that money.
one of the 9 other guys says to the rich guy "hey, i want some of your money"
The rich guy has no obligation to give the other guy that money. he has earned it fair and square. it is his and he has the right to do with it whatever he wants.
if that one guy who asked the rich guy for cash then pulls a gun and tell him to fork over the money or its "curtains" for him, then the poor guy has violated the rights of the rich guy. that is clearly theft.
If that one poor guy asks the rest the community to gather and have a vote on the topic of taking the rich guys money and giving it to those who "need" it, it is clear that the poor people are going to vote themselves the cash. at this point, since there is no enforcing entity (government) the rich guy shouldnt hand over the cash. just because everyone wants his money, doesnt mean that it isnt violating his rights. it means that the community has voted that his rights dont mean anything to them.
if that same community votes a president and that president is that poor guy that initially asked for the cash and the new "government" enforces a vote by the end of a gun, the rich guys rights are still being violated.
now, dont misconstrue this as a rant about how ALL taxes are evil and inherently violate rights.
there are some "just" taxes. those taxes are ones that are used to uphold the rights of the individual (police, military, judges, etc...). Every civil society needs laws to ensure the rights of the individuals living in that society.
Ben Franklin did say it best:
When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
...and that is what is happening. we are at that tipping point. Voting for the rich to pay more will only exacerbate the problem. .
you dont have to explain insurance to me. my family deals in health, life, and disability. i understand it quite well. if there is a small pool of people that never have an accident there will be lower premiums than a larger pool with many more people percentage wise getting into accidents.
the problem with this is again a rights violation issue.
and right now the health insurance system is so incredibly regulated that it is actually casusing an increas in insurance costs, not a decrease. it is being forced to do things that insurance was not designed or intended to do. covering a pre-existing condition is not "shared risk"
the "risk" does not exist. this is a shared cost. and it has to be made up somewhere. earlier in this post i made the point of a pool with a higher accident rate... this is that higher accident rate. it WILL happen. there is no risk, only added cost.
CLICK Antlantic Wire Article Here
CLICK NY Times Article Here
* I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *
I can't call this rape. I'll call it wrong. I'll disagree with the law. But "rape" is not justified. I looked up the legal definition of rape and the site I found, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape, shows that most states have very similar to West Virginia's, which is the state they use as the example. It had this to say:
"In West Virginia, a person commits sexual assault in the second degree by engaging in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person without that person's consent, and the lack of consent results from forcible compulsion. Forcible compulsion is (1) physical force that overcomes such earnest resistance as might reasonably be expected under the circumstances; (2) threat or intimidation, either express or implied, placing the victim or another person in fear of death, bodily injury, or Kidnapping; or (3) fear by a person under 16 years of age caused by intimidation by another person who is at least four years older than the victim."
Resistance is the key to rape! If there exists an open door for you to walk out of, it just isn't rape. It's something else. Something not right, unlawful, unconstitutional, whatever you want to label it, but just not rape.
He also said: "Taxes purchase civilization."
+ 1