Oklahoma busybody law loses.

[kallend 1,648]

www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/us/supreme-court-oklahoma-ultrasound-requirement.html?_r=0

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[futuredivot 0]

So, you don't think the mother should be afforded the information available?

Yeah, let's just tell them what supports my viewpoint. Geesh.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[billvon 2,434]

>So, you don't think the mother should be afforded the information available?

Personally I don't think government bureaucrats should be allowed to mandate vaginal penetrations via ultrasound probes. Sounds more like rape to me than medicine.

But that's just me.

[kallend 1,648]

futuredivot

So, you don't think the mother should be afforded the information available?

Yeah, let's just tell them what supports my viewpoint. Geesh.

So you think women should undergo an intrusive and humiliating experience in order to exercise their Constitutional rights?

Clearly you are a foot soldier in the War on Women.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[futuredivot 0]

Pssst-I don't expect truth to interfere with you indignation, but typically in these instances these are external only.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[billvon 2,434]

>Pssst-I don't expect truth to interfere with you indignation, but typically in these
>instances these are external only.

===============
Justices Leave in Place Ruling Against Abortion Ultrasound Requirement
November 12, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a state court’s decision striking down an Oklahoma law that required women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound image placed in front of them and to listen to a detailed description of the fetus before the procedure.

The ultrasound typically required a vaginal probe and had to be performed even if women objected.
==================

[turtlespeed 212]

futuredivot

Pssst-I don't expect truth to interfere with you indignation, but typically in these instances these are external only.

They want to make it less stressful to kill the baby.

Why let them see it as alive, when you can insulate the mother from the full impact of killing a baby.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,434]

>They want to make it less stressful to kill the baby.

Actually we don't want the government mandating the insertion of probes into people's bodies. We think that people can make their own decisions without penetrations like that.

But if you really want that done to you . . . knock yourself out.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>They want to make it less stressful to kill the baby.

Actually we don't want the government mandating the insertion of probes into people's bodies. We think that people can make their own decisions without penetrations like that.

But if you really want that done to you . . . knock yourself out.

You don't want people to have choices. You know what is best for them.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,434]

>You don't want people to have choices.

No, I want people to have the choice to get a vaginal ultrasound or not. It should be up to them - not up to a government bureaucrat.

I find it funny that you want to mandate inserting a probe in a woman's vagina, but mandate just that she have healthcare - ABOMINATION!

[futuredivot 0]

Do you have any idea how silly that is? You are basically familiar abortions are normally performed, right?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[billvon 2,434]

>Do you have any idea how silly that is? You are basically familiar abortions are
>normally performed, right?

Yes. Are you familiar with the difference between consensual sex and rape?

[normiss 622]

I could see government anal probes.
We have to be able to identify the assholes.
Thankfully, here, some make it fairly easy.

[linebckr83 3]

kallend

***So, you don't think the mother should be afforded the information available?

Yeah, let's just tell them what supports my viewpoint. Geesh.

So you think women should undergo an intrusive and humiliating experience in order to exercise their Constitutional rights?

Clearly you are a foot soldier in the War on Women.

Clearly you are a foot soldier in the War on Unborn Children. See how easy it is to make stupid childish assumptions?

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[SkyDekker 1,145]

linebckr83

******So, you don't think the mother should be afforded the information available?

Yeah, let's just tell them what supports my viewpoint. Geesh.

So you think women should undergo an intrusive and humiliating experience in order to exercise their Constitutional rights?

Clearly you are a foot soldier in the War on Women.

Clearly you are a foot soldier in the War on Unborn Children. See how easy it is to make stupid childish assumptions?

If you ever wore a condom, or had sex with a woman on birth control, you too are a foto soldier in the War on Unborn Children.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

*********So, you don't think the mother should be afforded the information available?

Yeah, let's just tell them what supports my viewpoint. Geesh.

So you think women should undergo an intrusive and humiliating experience in order to exercise their Constitutional rights?

Clearly you are a foot soldier in the War on Women.

Clearly you are a foot soldier in the War on Unborn Children. See how easy it is to make stupid childish assumptions?

If you ever wore a condom, or had sex with a woman on birth control, you too are a foto soldier in the War on Unborn Children.

Those prevent conception, they are not facilitating murder.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,145]

turtlespeed

************So, you don't think the mother should be afforded the information available?

Yeah, let's just tell them what supports my viewpoint. Geesh.

So you think women should undergo an intrusive and humiliating experience in order to exercise their Constitutional rights?

Clearly you are a foot soldier in the War on Women.

Clearly you are a foot soldier in the War on Unborn Children. See how easy it is to make stupid childish assumptions?

If you ever wore a condom, or had sex with a woman on birth control, you too are a foto soldier in the War on Unborn Children.

Those prevent conception, they are not facilitating murder.

Evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation. Interfering with it reduces the number children being conceived and born. It really is no different from abortion.

[linebckr83 3]

SkyDekker

***************So, you don't think the mother should be afforded the information available?

Yeah, let's just tell them what supports my viewpoint. Geesh.

So you think women should undergo an intrusive and humiliating experience in order to exercise their Constitutional rights?

Clearly you are a foot soldier in the War on Women.

Clearly you are a foot soldier in the War on Unborn Children. See how easy it is to make stupid childish assumptions?

If you ever wore a condom, or had sex with a woman on birth control, you too are a foto soldier in the War on Unborn Children.

Those prevent conception, they are not facilitating murder.

Evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation. Interfering with it reduces the number children being conceived and born. It really is no different from abortion.

"really no different"?

I do not see how preventing conception and killing a child are the same thing. Sure the end means is 1 less kid in the world, but one method involves death and the other doesn't. Hardly the same thing.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[billvon 2,434]

>I do not see how preventing conception and killing a child are the same thing.

But you think killing a newborn child and aborting a ten millimeter wide clump of dividing cells are the same thing?

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

Evolutionary purpose of sex is procreation. Interfering with it reduces the number children being conceived and born. It really is no different from abortion.

"No different" the same as not pulling the trigger on a gun is "no different" than saving a life.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,259]

turtlespeed

***>They want to make it less stressful to kill the baby.

Actually we don't want the government mandating the insertion of probes into people's bodies. We think that people can make their own decisions without penetrations like that.

But if you really want that done to you . . . knock yourself out.

You don't want people to have choices. You know what is best for them.

That is not an objection to Bill's argument, it is an objection to your argument. You are here in this thread supporting a law that would force women to have a certain procedure instead of letting them choose whether or not to have that procedure.

I don't know how you could posibly be unaware of that. "" is about right.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 212]

jakee

******>They want to make it less stressful to kill the baby.

Actually we don't want the government mandating the insertion of probes into people's bodies. We think that people can make their own decisions without penetrations like that.

But if you really want that done to you . . . knock yourself out.

You don't want people to have choices. You know what is best for them.

That is not an objection to Bill's argument, it is an objection to your argument. You are here in this thread supporting a law that would force women to have a certain procedure instead of letting them choose whether or not to have that procedure.

I don't know how you could posibly be unaware of that. "" is about right.

You miss my point.

The one requesting the abortion should be given the truth about what she is doing. The whole truth, yes, even the "Inconvenient Truth".

She should have to witness the procedure first hand before she is allowed to go forward.

I don't agree that vaginal penetration should be required by law, but if it is the only way to educate her, then it's the best we have.

Education about what act she is having performed should absolutely be required.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,434]

>The one requesting the abortion should be given the truth about what she is doing.

They are. They are told what to expect medically. That is the truth.

>She should have to witness the procedure first hand before she is allowed to go forward.

OK, let's do this then:

If anyone who is pregnant goes to an OB-GYN, they should be forced to watch a half an hour of graphic material on maternal eclampsia deaths, fetal abnormalities, stillbirths and birth defects - including the destruction of the body after the child dies. If they close their eyes, or decline to see the video, then there's a mandatory abortion.

That way they go into the pregnancy with the TRUTH about what they are doing.

Fair?

[linebckr83 3]

billvon

>I do not see how preventing conception and killing a child are the same thing.

But you think killing a newborn child and aborting a ten millimeter wide clump of dividing cells are the same thing?

At what age is a fetus a ten millimeter wide clump of dividing cells? Do you have any idea what a 24-week old fetus looks like? I'll give you a hint...much more like a child than a clump of cells. Hell, Dr. Tiller here in Wichita would even abort into the third trimester. Do you know what a fetus that old looks like?

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[kelpdiver 2]

turtlespeed

***

You don't want people to have choices. You know what is best for them.

You miss my point.

She should have to witness the procedure first hand before she is allowed to go forward.

I don't agree that vaginal penetration should be required by law, but if it is the only way to educate her, then it's the best we have.

Education about what act she is having performed should absolutely be required.

so....where are those choices you were talking about? It sounds like you were speaking to yourself in the prior post. You don't want people to have choices, and you know better than others what is best for them.

Though I'm curious - what education do you think occurs when the woman is shown the ultrasound of a small clump of cells? I can see the obvious humiliation factor, but I'm struggling to see what new information she is being provided. You don't think she's aware of what a fetus is and will (2/3rds of the time) eventually become?

Maybe the education should be handled earlier, say in the form of non stupid sex ed classes in high school? Which I know interferes with the parents' rights to decide what their children hear, but it doesn't seem like parents count in your thinking here, supporting this law.