Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I were a licensed OB/GYN I would recommend what to whom?
The comment means that your opinion doesn't mean squat unless you are a licensed OB/GYN and you feel that it is a medically necessary procedure for your patient.
So unless you are a doctor, you and the State should have ZERO to say about recommending or forcing medical procedures.
In the context of the strip, there is an implied consent for the ultrasound on the the part of the woman undergoing it. If she did not consent, it would not be performed.
I totally agree that a woman who desires an abortion should not be required to undergo an ultrasound in order to obtain the abortion.
There are people who are fostering a movement against "medical rape", which includes the unpleasant but necessary examinations done to follow a woman in labor and to deliver a baby. I am afraid any implication that a vaginal ultrasound is "rape" will add fuel to that fire.
Try reading what you wrote and we responded to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The Atlanta Journal Constitution is running it in its usual spot in the "Living" section without comment.
My local paper is carrying it in the usual place on the editorial page without comment.
I have an objection to referring to the ultrasound procedure as "rape", however, even satirically. It is, after all, a legitimate medical procedure.
To which I call bs.
No one gets to put anything up me without my expressed permission.
Your attempt to minimize state condoned rape is disgusting.
In the context of the strip, there is an implied consent for the ultrasound on the the part of the woman undergoing it. If she did not consent, it would not be performed.
I totally agree that a woman who desires an abortion should NOT be required to undergo an ultrasound in order to obtain the abortion.
There are people who are fostering a movement against "medical rape", which includes the unpleasant but necessary examinations done to follow a woman in labor and to deliver a baby. I am afraid any implication that a vaginal ultrasound is "rape" will add fuel to that fire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon
The comment means that your opinion doesn't mean squat unless you are a licensed OB/GYN and you feel that it is a medically necessary procedure for your patient.
So unless you are a doctor, you and the State should have ZERO to say about recommending or forcing medical procedures.
I am assuming you misread what I said. I agree with all of you that the law is a bad one and that the state should not be involved in the conversation between a patient and a doctor for any reason, including the decision to have an abortion.
The concern that I have is that there is now a movement in which the participants are describing procedures which are performed for valid medical indications as "medical rape", such as examinations during labor. I fear that Mr. Trudeau has inadvertently provided that movement with ammunition. Those procedures are not "rape" and neither is a vaginal ultrasound performed during early pregnancy, with the patient's consent, whether in relation to an abortion or not.
In fact, I suspect that most abortions are preceded by an ultrasound. The ultrasound tells the surgeon that there is, first, a pregnancy inside the uterus. Not all of them are inside the uterus. Sometimes they are in the tube. Ultrasound also tells how far along the pregnancy is, whether there has already been death of the fetus (relieving the patient of having to deal with the emotional issues of terminating a pregnancy) and how large the uterus is (which is important in doing the procedure safely).
Aside from telling the patient that a pregnancy of certain dates has been confirmed, there is no reason to force her to watch the ultrasound, listen to the fetal heartbeat, or listen to a description of fetal anatomy. That is the part of the law that is disgusting.
Transvaginal ultrasound is a valuable part of early pregnancy diagnosis and care with legitimate indications for its use. I have misgivings about it being referred to as "rape", even in a manner that is obviously meant as satire.
Try reading what you wrote and we responded to: To which I call bs. No one gets to put anything up me without my expressed permission.
Your attempt to minimize state condoned rape is disgusting.
I said, "I have an objection to referring to the ultrasound procedure as 'rape', however, even satirically. It is, after all, a legitimate medical procedure."
What do you think I meant? All I am saying is that I object to a medical procedure with valid indications for use in pregnancy, including as part of the pre-operative evaluation for termination of pregnancy, being called "rape."
Please see my response to Mr. Mon.
In no way was I minimizing "state condoned rape."
No one would ever perform an ultrasound on you without your permission, whether you were planning to get an abortion or not.
I said, "I have an objection to referring to the ultrasound procedure as 'rape', however, even satirically. It is, after all, a legitimate medical procedure."
What do you think I meant? All I am saying is that I object to a medical procedure with valid indications for use in pregnancy, including as part of the pre-operative evaluation for termination of pregnancy, being called "rape."
Please see my response to Mr. Mon.
In no way was I minimizing "state condoned rape."
No one would ever perform an ultrasound on you without your permission, whether you were planning to get an abortion or not.
Don't waste your time on our local faux war protester.
Doonesbury hasn't been funny for the last, what, 15 years or so. Trudeau just completely lost his sense of objectivity and passes up so many great sources of comedy and political commentary. If anything objectionable is done by the far left he'll ignore it or at best just give it the slightest most uninspired tweaking. But then he'll go on and on over the slightest transgression the right makes and do it with more viciousness and venom than humor. He sucks.
Our paper, the Reading Eagle, didn't publish his abortion story. The editor explained why, basing his decision as one of good taste more than anything political.
Somebody enlighten me. The medcial procedure is described as a rape, but isn't an abortion even more invasive than the procedure?
But as crappy and humorless as Doonesbury is, why hasn't somebody stepped up and started a new political and social comic? If you'd aim at both sides of the political divide you'd get twice the laughs. Present day comics are generally a wasteland. Where's the talent?
Notice how the leftists try to slip in a small but important change of subject when they are losing an argument?
The point appears to have whizzed over your head with sufficient speed to alter the local weather patterns. If it rains today, you only have yourself to blame.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
