GOP Big Government wants to probe women's Vagina

[CausingPAIN]

GOP.. Needs to call in SARAH to finish this job!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

rdean doesn't know the difference between a womb and a vagina.

An ultrasound is not invasive, but an abortion is.

Read the OP -

You're thinking physical as opposed to mental/emotional. A MANDATORY ultrasound is VERY invasive.

As someone said above, its a way of controlling the woman's decision and therefore, very invasive.

We need to get the damn GObP/Repub Peeping Toms out of our personal lives.

 

[Liability]

rdean doesn't know the difference between a womb and a vagina.

An ultrasound is not invasive, but an abortion is.

* * * *

We need to get the damn GObP/Repub Peeping Toms out of our personal lives.

Muddly.dullwit ^ wants to make the world safe for the snuffing of the preborn.

Millions and millions slaughtered.

 

[Sherry]

rdean doesn't know the difference between a womb and a vagina.

An ultrasound is not invasive, but an abortion is.

Read the OP -

You're thinking physical as opposed to mental/emotional. A MANDATORY ultrasound is VERY invasive.

As someone said above, its a way of controlling the woman's decision and therefore, very invasive.

We need to get the damn GObP/Repub Peeping Toms out of our personal lives.

How does it control her decision?? Will she opt out of one procedure if she doesn't have the other procedure??

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unless you are afraid that women might actually change their minds about their decision once seeing an ultrasound of their developing fetuses, I am not quite sure how you can claim to be pro-choice and be against requiring doctors to give their patients all the information about what the elective surgery they are requesting entails.

That’s not the issue.

It’s the state compelling a private citizen to undergo a procedure that is not medically necessary, clearly invasive, and constitutes an undue burden in violation of her Constitutional right to privacy.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's amazing we've come to this point that a vaginal ultrasound is considered sadistic meanwhile sucking a baby out of a womb is AOK.

Wow. Just wow.

Oh gosh, I think I'm gonna swoon.

Naw, I take that back because, in a way, I agree with you that our priorities are seriously screwed up. Fact is, abortion has been a part of the human experience since the second pregnancy. The pubs can outlaw abortion but nothing will ever stop them from being done.

If we were honest and if we were truly compassionate, we would face that fact and proceed from there. We would make abortion as painless and easy for the fetus AND for the woman as possible.

We care more about the method we use to kill murderers than we do this.

There will always be people who believe they have the right to control the personal and private lives of other people. They'll use some trumped up religion or any other way they can find to force others to do what they wish them to.

Until that changes, our methods of abortion will be barbaric and cruel.

Nonetheless, its no one business but the woman's.

That's just the way it is.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

rdean doesn't know the difference between a womb and a vagina.

An ultrasound is not invasive, but an abortion is.

Read the OP -

You're thinking physical as opposed to mental/emotional. A MANDATORY ultrasound is VERY invasive.

As someone said above, its a way of controlling the woman's decision and therefore, very invasive.

We need to get the damn GObP/Repub Peeping Toms out of our personal lives.

How does it control her decision?? Will she opt out of one procedure if she doesn't have the other procedure??

That's what the bible thumpers in the GObP hope.

Is there really any doubt of that?

 

[rdean]

Unless you are afraid that women might actually change their minds about their decision once seeing an ultrasound of their developing fetuses, I am not quite sure how you can claim to be pro-choice and be against requiring doctors to give their patients all the information about what the elective surgery they are requesting entails.

My mother recently had a benign growth removed from her breast. Her doctor performed the mammogram and the following tests to determine what the growth was, where exactly it was, etc. She showed my mother these ultrasounds, pointed out the growth, explained what exactly it was, where exactly it was, what exactly she would do when she went in to remove it, what the negative effects of this surgery would be, what they would do with the growth afterwards, and what signs my mother should monitor for to be sure that everything is ok.

She didn't say, "we found a lump...you want us to get rid of it for you? Ok, come in Thursday...sign some papers and we'll get started."

If you elect to have an abortion that is your right. But it is extremely ironic to state that it is somehow insulting or inappropriate to show a woman what is in her body, what will be removed, and what the risks of that surgery will be...when in fact, NOT giving a woman all that information because it might make her decision "too difficult" is what is demeaning and inappropriate.

I am pro-choice. That means that I value a woman's legal right to evaluate ALL THE INFORMATION and weigh her decision accordingly - CHOOSING based on all the facts. I am NOT pro-abortion. Which is why I do not value the opinion that a woman should be able to say, "I choose a potentially dangerous surgery...just lemme have it without any information because I'm not sure I can handle it if I have all the information."

This is an "invasive" ultra sound up the Va Jay Jay. Totally not needed. It's part of the plan to demean women.

 

[rdean]

rdean has never harbored ANY desire to probe a woman's vagina.

You can't speak for me.

Besides, if you consider "sex" to be "probe a woman's vagina", you are probably the world's worst lay. Just sayin'.

 

[rdean]

I'm curious. What's wrong with saying "Va Jay Jay"? Oprah says it.

 

[Gem]

luddly wrote:

A MANDATORY ultrasound is VERY invasive.

As someone said above, its a way of controlling the woman's decision and therefore, very invasive.

It is only "invasive" or an attempt to "control a woman's decision" if you are somehow afraid that giving a woman all of the information about the procedure she is electing to have is dangerous or invasive rather than sound medical practice.

It might make a man's decision to have a quadruple bipass surgery more difficult if you show him the ultrasound of his heart, showing him just how blocked everything is, and discussing with him how great his chances of death will be if he elects to have the surgery...but to NOT give him that information is just as detrimental. He needs to be informed in order to be able to make the best decision for him.

If you trust women to weight the pros and cons of a difficult surgery and choose the option that is best for them...then you MUST support that woman's RIGHT to be given ALL of the information prior to surgery. Hiding information from her to spare her feelings is not supporting her or trusting her...but rather is treating her with contempt - in essence, you are telling her that she can not be trusted to make the "correct" decision, if she is given too much information.

Just as a doctor would for any surgery...s/he should review ALL relevant information with the patient (in this case, that would include what is going to be removed and, most likely, how developed it is because that might determine the methods used, etc.) and then let the patient make the informed decision.

If it truly is just a medical procedure...then treat it as such. Doctors should provide all information - patients should decide what is best for them with full knowledge of what they are choosing.

 

[Liability]

Unless you are afraid that women might actually change their minds about their decision once seeing an ultrasound of their developing fetuses, I am not quite sure how you can claim to be pro-choice and be against requiring doctors to give their patients all the information about what the elective surgery they are requesting entails.

My mother recently had a benign growth removed from her breast. Her doctor performed the mammogram and the following tests to determine what the growth was, where exactly it was, etc. She showed my mother these ultrasounds, pointed out the growth, explained what exactly it was, where exactly it was, what exactly she would do when she went in to remove it, what the negative effects of this surgery would be, what they would do with the growth afterwards, and what signs my mother should monitor for to be sure that everything is ok.

She didn't say, "we found a lump...you want us to get rid of it for you? Ok, come in Thursday...sign some papers and we'll get started."

If you elect to have an abortion that is your right. But it is extremely ironic to state that it is somehow insulting or inappropriate to show a woman what is in her body, what will be removed, and what the risks of that surgery will be...when in fact, NOT giving a woman all that information because it might make her decision "too difficult" is what is demeaning and inappropriate.

I am pro-choice. That means that I value a woman's legal right to evaluate ALL THE INFORMATION and weigh her decision accordingly - CHOOSING based on all the facts. I am NOT pro-abortion. Which is why I do not value the opinion that a woman should be able to say, "I choose a potentially dangerous surgery...just lemme have it without any information because I'm not sure I can handle it if I have all the information."

This is an "invasive" ultra sound up the Va Jay Jay. Totally not needed. It's part of the plan to demean women.

You fucking perv.

Your ignorance is as boundless as your dishonesty.

 

[theliq]

Yeah, well the DNC wants us to bend over and take it up the ass.

WHY ???? Has the Pussy Price Gone Up So Much in America....... theliq

 

[Sherry]

Read the OP -

You're thinking physical as opposed to mental/emotional. A MANDATORY ultrasound is VERY invasive.

As someone said above, its a way of controlling the woman's decision and therefore, very invasive.

We need to get the damn GObP/Repub Peeping Toms out of our personal lives.

How does it control her decision?? Will she opt out of one procedure if she doesn't have the other procedure??

That's what the bible thumpers in the GObP hope.

Is there really any doubt of that?

You let your disdain for the right cloud your judgment and consideration for a woman making a fully informed decision...and if you'd read my post in the other thread, you would show some more compassion for women and their long-term emotional well-being. It's really odd to me that some on the left seem so threatened by the idea because they think it might change a woman's mind, like that is a bad thing. You are the flip side of those you deride who would force a woman to have a child...you come off as though you want them to be denied an informed and complete choice.

 

[Gem]

rdean wrote:

This is an "invasive" ultra sound up the Va Jay Jay. Totally not needed. It's part of the plan to demean women.

As my ob/gyn explained it to me...often abdominal ultrasounds are not as accurate in the first trimester. In that instance, vaginal ultrasounds are better suited to giving doctors are clearer picture of the development of the fetus.

I had a vaginal ultrasound with my son because I wasn't sure about when he was conceived. They started with the abdominal ultrasound but were unable to see him. The vaginal ultrasound was about as invasive as any trip to the ob/gyn for a vaginal exam. It was FAR less uncomfortable than a speculum.

Again...you are saying that because a woman going in for surgery might be made uncomfortable by a test the doctor shouldn't determine how developed the fetus is, if there are any other issues (cysts, two fetuses, etc.) before they begin the procedure???? Sorry...a doctor should be WELL-PREPARED for what they will encounter before they begin a procedure...and if there is a complication that can be determined before hand, the patient and doctor should know.

A vaginal ultrasound is no less invasive than an abortion. And all women have the RIGHT to all of the information before they agree to an invasive and potentially dangerous surgery.

 

[Liability]

rdean wrote:

This is an "invasive" ultra sound up the Va Jay Jay. Totally not needed. It's part of the plan to demean women.

As my ob/gyn explained it to me...often abdominal ultrasounds are not as accurate in the first trimester. In that instance, vaginal ultrasounds are better suited to giving doctors are clearer picture of the development of the fetus.

I had a vaginal ultrasound with my son because I wasn't sure about when he was conceived. They started with the abdominal ultrasound but were unable to see him. The vaginal ultrasound was about as invasive as any trip to the ob/gyn for a vaginal exam. It was FAR less uncomfortable than a speculum.

Again...you are saying that because a woman going in for surgery might be made uncomfortable by a test the doctor shouldn't determine how developed the fetus is, if there are any other issues (cysts, two fetuses, etc.) before they begin the procedure???? Sorry...a doctor should be WELL-PREPARED for what they will encounter before they begin a procedure...and if there is a complication that can be determined before hand, the patient and doctor should know.

A vaginal ultrasound is no less invasive than an abortion. And all women have the RIGHT to all of the information before they agree to an invasive and potentially dangerous surgery.

rderp is afraid of vaginas.

 

[Conservative]

Dean is just upset that no one wants to probe his vagina

 

[Liability]

Dean is just upset that no one wants to probe his vagina

The yeast and sand embarrass him.

 

[rdean]

How does it control her decision?? Will she opt out of one procedure if she doesn't have the other procedure??

That's what the bible thumpers in the GObP hope.

Is there really any doubt of that?

You let your disdain for the right cloud your judgment and consideration for a woman making a fully informed decision...and if you'd read my post in the other thread, you would show some more compassion for women and their long-term emotional well-being. It's really odd to me that some on the left seem so threatened by the idea because they think it might change a woman's mind, like that is a bad thing. You are the flip side of those you deride who would force a woman to have a child...you come off as though you want them to be denied an informed and complete choice.

If the woman already made the decision, what is it you think you're helping her with?

If you really wanted to help her, you would make sure she had health care and diapers, baby food and not lose interest after the child is born.

Look at Republican Andre "Feed the poor and they'll breed" Bauer. He feels starvation is the best form of birth control How many other Republicans share those beliefs?

 

[Unkotare]

Wow, another troll thread from the same damn troll AGAIN. What a fucking surprise.