Political Suicide....Has The GOP Written Off The Women's Vote?

reply to post by charles1952


1. First pregnancy. My first pregnancy at age 21 ended in a 4 month spontaneous abortion. I actually aborted it in the toilet. Hubby had the foresight to scoop it up and take it to the hospital with us.

2. Daughter.

3. Daughter.

4. Abortion

5. Partial hysterectomy. I had a separated lining that blocked the Fallopian tube - causing an infection - and psycho hormonal behavior.

I believe I have enough Real Life Experience to have a valid opinion on this subject.

No Man or Law has the right to tell me what to do with my body. Period!

reply to post by Annee

Dear Annee,

I've never questioned your right or credentials to have an opinion on the subject. I'm glad you do. How else am I going to learn anything?

At the moment it looks like the law will be tweaked and then argued in the courts. It looks like the courts will support the law, based on their current stance.

I think an TSA patdown is more intrusive than an external ultrasound, but there doesn't appear to be much chance that those patdowns will be eliminated.

Unless you can think of a different approach, I think the best we can do is figure out what safeguards to put in the bill that might be accepted by the roughly 2/3 majority in Virginia.

Get better quick,

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
I think an TSA patdown is more intrusive than an external ultrasound, but there doesn't appear to be much chance that those patdowns will be eliminated.

TSA patdowns (or other means of security in boarding a plane) applies to Every One.

Being intrusive has nothing to do with it - - in the overall reason for a law that takes away a woman's personal rights.

There should be no law required ultrasound - Period. On the belly or otherwise.

Don't get sidetracked by the extremism of a vaginal unltrasound. FORCED ultrasound is FORCED ultrasound.

reply to post by Annee


So a law that violate's everyone's personal rights is okay? But a law that violate's just women's right is wrong? I'm confused but your post.

Originally posted by headorheart
reply to post by Annee

 

So a law that violate's everyone's personal rights is okay? But a law that violate's just women's right is wrong? I'm confused but your post.

Where did I say that?

I did not bring the comparison of the TSA patdown into the conversation.

However the TSA patdown applies to everyone - - - not just a woman who is pregnant wanting an abortion.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by Flatfish

 

This is a very invasive procedure that includes vaginal penetration.

So is abortion.....which is why the woman is there, after all...

The point of this law is to potentially save the life of the unborn baby. An ultrasound will show the mother that this is a LIFE. At early stages of pregnancy, transvaginal is the only type of ultrasound that will work.

As a woman, I have no problem with a law that requires another woman to have to consider her unborn child as a life before she has it removed. I don't consider it any more invasive than the abortion she is there to get.

So, as you can see by my post, I don't think this is an issue that would make me, a conservative woman, feel written off by the GOP.

I'm only 3 or 4 posts in...and I'm already...confused and dismayed

Abortion is invasive - and she is there for an invasive procedure - by choice

Abortion is legal in Virginia - every woman who decides to have one knows why she is having one. It's just pure condescension and arrogance to suppose that anyone has the right to try and change her mind

The only real reason they have for trying to pass this into law is so they'll be able to legally stick it to women who don't behave the way they think women should behave

Her decision is not anybody's business but her own. The state has no more right trying to change my mind in this situation than it does trying to tell me what to believe. Or where to go for dinner for that matter - it isn't the government's place

I always hear people complaining about how government should back off and let people do what they believe is right for them

I guess that doesn't really apply to a woman's privates - does it?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by LErickson

 

If you'd like to discuss one of the issues from a previous page, feel free to bring it up again. I'm always happy to have a reasonable discussion.

I just did and you responded by telling me it was not relevant because you did not say it on this page.

reply to post by LErickson

The only thing i can conclude is that your referring to something you wrote in response to GeorgiaGirl, because I have gone through the thread and have not seen a response to me from you. This is what you said to GeorgiaGirl.

Do you really believe all women have abortions because no one clued them into the fact that what they are aborting is a baby?
You think they need this to let them know?
You think very little of your fellow women.

You call yourself conservative but you support a law that forces women to have a medically unneccesary procedure that deals with something very private and intimate. These are not doctors mandating this, these are lawmakers telling women what must be done to their bodies.
All about liberty and smaller government right?

This is disgusting. People that say they are conservatives but support this crap is are worse. Women who support this are the bottom of the barrel.

Looking at the first of your three paragraphs, I would respond with a question. Does showing the woman her sonogram have any effect? If the answer is no, then why even discuss it? I think you would agree that seeing the sonogram is a different way of seeing a truth she already knows. As you put it "the fact that what they are aborting is a baby."

As an example, you've probably seen the threads here which show an interactive scale of the universe in a graphic format. We all know the universe is huge, but looking at it that way lets us see a different way in which it is huge. It has been argued that it is the same with a sonogram.

Your third paragraph is unfortunate, a rant more than a discussion. You condemned people who hold a belief (a widespread belief, by the way) instead of focusing on the error of the belief. I was really surprised that you seemed to be biased against women in your judgment. You said basically that if a man held the belief you disagreed with, he was bad, but if a woman held it, she was really bottom of the barrel scum.

Now to your second paragraph, the argument that has already been expressed by Annee and windword. Please allow me to approach it in a bit of a scattershot manner, and forgive me for repeating things I've already written.

We were just discussing emrgency abortions that required waiving any waiting period. I think that would be acceptable to everybody. From the materials referenced in this thread I learned that abortionists are already doing ultrasounds on a routine basis, and that the Virginia law is being modified to reflect that it was only an external ultrasound that was required. Doctors are already "requiring" themselves to give ultrasounds prior to abortions. That makes me wonder if it is medically unnecessary. If the procedure was unnecessary, why are doctors doing it on a routine basis even before the law kicks in?

So far I have seen two arguments against the law that I can sympathize with. One is, "The government can't make me do anything I don't want to do." I applaud the sentiment. I don't like government either, and it tells us to do too many things. Unfortunately, history shows us that government can make us do things.

The second argument is that showing women their sonograms will reduce the number of abortions, and that must not be allowed. Whether it's for population control, reducing unwanted children, or whatever, abortion must not be interfered with. I don't happen to agree with this argument, but it is logically acceptable.

So, have I addressed whatever issue you wanted to discuss with me? I hope so, but if I've missed it, I'd be happy to try again.

Originally posted by charles1952

The second argument is that showing women their sonograms will reduce the number of abortions, and that must not be allowed. Whether it's for population control, reducing unwanted children, or whatever, abortion must not be interfered with. I don't happen to agree with this argument, but it is logically acceptable.

You seem to want to avoid the word FORCED.

There is an abundance of Free Counseling services - - for any woman that has doubts. Any woman can CHOOSE counseling or to view the sonogram - - if she has doubts.

I chose abortion to protect the welfare and security of my 2 living children. It was not an easy decision. But it was was 100% an unselfish decision - - made for the welfare and security of my 2 living children.

I would have been pissed as hell - - if I had to also deal with this forced crap - - that some self-righteous "old white guys" chose for me. It is none of their damn business.

reply to post by Annee

Dear Annee,

You are one of the more interesting people on the site, and one of the few I'd look forward to spending a couple of hours in conversation with. This is a strange format and I wish it wasn't this way, but oh well, nothing to be done.

You're right, I am avoiding the use of the word "forced." That's because the woman is not forced to see the sonogram. Further, my understanding is that sonograms are currently routine, a part of the package. When you go in for an abortion a sonogram is done. I don't know, I supposed that might be interpreted to mean "forced," but I don't think that's what's generally meant.

I do see some forcing in this law though, the woman has to say whether she wants to see the sonogram or not, but to me that seems like an easy "yes" or "no."

There is an abundance of Free Counseling services - - for any woman that has doubts. Any woman can CHOOSE counseling or to view the sonogram - - if she has doubts.

That makes sense to me. I'm trying to guess their reasoning, but perhaps the legislature wanted to make sure that the woman had the opportunity to see the sonogram, or officially declined.

The subject matter is not the same, but Congress has put warnings and info labels on cigarettes, alcohol, food, ladders, electric cords and darn near everything large enough to carry a label. Could it be that this is the state approved info label on abortion? Everyone is free to ignore the labels, but perhaps the state felt it should be there? I'm just guessing, don't hold me to it.

Anyway, I'd like to thank you for both your passion and tolerance. I'm enjoying you very much.

With respect,
charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by LErickson

 

The only thing i can conclude is that your referring to something you wrote in response to GeorgiaGirl, because I have gone through the thread and have not seen a response to me from you. This is what you said to GeorgiaGirl.

No idea why you are looking for a specific response to refer to at all.
I thought things were cut and dry with my first post to you.

I am not playing this game.

Originally posted by charles1952
You're right, I am avoiding the use of the word "forced." That's because the woman is not forced to see the sonogram.

You are avoiding.

She is FORCED to have the sonogram. No sonogram - - no question whether you want to look or not.

reply to post by Annee


Dear Annee,

I'm not trying to avoid anything, perhaps unintentionally I'm missing your point. Ok. I understand that you're objecting to the ultrasound, not the "looking at the results" issue. But I was being sincere when I wrote:

Further, my understanding is that sonograms are currently routine, a part of the package. When you go in for an abortion a sonogram is done. I don't know, I supposed that might be interpreted to mean "forced," but I don't think that's what's generally meant.

When I go to get a cavity filled, I know the dentist will take an x-ray, clean my teeth, scrape away a little plaque, give me a spool of floss, that sort of thing. When I decide to get a cavity repaired, the rest just follows.

Doctors now routinely give ultrasounds prior to abortions, the woman is going to get one when she decides to have an abortion. Isn't the result the same? She gets the ultrasound law or not?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm truly just missing your point.

With respect,
Charles1952

The GOP could do a lot better. It is painfully obvious there is a conspiracy to re-elect Obama. Obama has been proven to be malleable to whoever the puppet masters are. The whole political system is a sad joke lesser of evils choices because no real change will ever happen as long as they control it all.

Makes me sick

Originally posted by eywadevotee
The GOP could do a lot better. It is painfully obvious there is a conspiracy to re-elect Obama. Obama has been proven to be malleable to whoever the puppet masters are. The whole political system is a sad joke lesser of evils choices because no real change will ever happen as long as they control it all.

Makes me sick

Hey - - Obama is not the subject.

Why don't you take your Obama conspiracy to the appropriate thread.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Annee

 

Dear Annee,

I'm not trying to avoid anything, perhaps unintentionally I'm missing your point. Ok. I understand that you're objecting to the ultrasound, not the "looking at the results" issue.

I know you are sincere. That's why I keep talking to you.

You keep bringing up comparisons that are "elective" by the individual.

According to this law - - an Ultrasound is not an elective if you want to have an abortion. It is a FORCED procedure - - that is completely unnecessary.

No Ultrasound - - nothing to look at to say "yes" or "no" to.

reply to post by Annee

Dear Annee,

Ok, I agree with you. Ultrasound was not required by law before, but it will be when the law is passed. You are right.

Now, what will change? Do you think there will be more ultrasounds? My understanding was that there will be about the same number as there are currently. Because it seems that the result in the hospitals will be about the same with or without the law, I haven't been getting too excited about it.

Is the problem not so much what the result will be, as it is that the legislature is making any law about women at all? That they are legislating in an off-limits area?

With respect,
Charles1952

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Charmed707
How stupid do you have to be to think that abortion only affects your body? All I hear is "my body, my body, my body" from feminists. ONCE YOU ARE PREGNANT, THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER A MERE MATTER OF *YOUR* BODY. When you have an abortion, you are not having a body part removed. You are robbing another human being of their life. This laughable and cliche excuse for an argument needs to be layed to rest already. You only make yourself look foolish when you use it.

You obviously don't comprehend the special class of self-centered egotism involved with the feminine.

reply to post by MasterGemini


I am a female. I do recognize that too many modern western women have been influenced by feminism by being driven by a massive amount of narcissism, materialism, and greed- the things I deplore the most.