It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Victory for women in Virginia? Governor no longer backs ultrasound before abortion

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Apparently most of these people didn't even know what a vaginal ultrasound was... freaking politicians, yet again legislating on stuff they DON'T KNOW SQUAT ABOUT.

Virginia governor no longer fully supports ultrasounds before abortions

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell is backing off his unconditional support for a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, focusing new attention on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in Virginia’s General Assembly this year.

Until this weekend, McDonnell (R) and his aides had said the governor would sign the measure if it made it to his desk. McDonnell, who strongly opposes abortion, will no longer make that commitment.


And the key part :

Many of the bill’s supporters were apparently unaware of how invasive the procedure could be, one of the officials added.

FREAKING IDIOTS.

There should be a test on every bill they are about to vote on.
edit on 23-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Well in order to have an abortion you have to have a tube like object stuffed up you, same with a vaginal ultrasound. So people that cry invasive is a little bit much.

The whole bill doesn't make any sense because people will still have abortions.

I like this point as well


What happened to all the extreme right wing's indignant "government intrusion" claims concerning mandated health care? Not only are they extreme right but extreme hypocrites.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

And no one really won because a revised version of the bill passed.


WASHINGTON -- The Virginia House of Delegates passed on Wednesday a revised version of a GOP-sponsored informed consent bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound at least 24 hours before having an abortion. The new bill, which requires women to receive an external, transabdominal ultrasound rather than a more invasive transvaginal ultrasound, passed by a vote of 65-32.

edit on 23-2-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 



The new bill, which requires women to receive an external, transabdominal ultrasound

Well this is no big deal... I had several over the years.

But still, it's still BS since it's not the government business at all.

Hopefully the governor vetoes.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


I've had several ultrasounds, too. It's no big deal, like you siad. But they were medically necessary. And I wanted them.

This story in Virginia is a totally different situation. This law covers ALL women who want an abortion. Even a woman who got pregnant as a result of rape or has a miscarriage. She has to go have an ultrasound (that probably won't show anything) before she gets an abortion. She has to lie there on the table while the tech unnecessarily searches her body for the thing that could be easily removed. And then wait 24 hours to have it done.

A woman who has a miscarriage would normally go get an evacuation of the uterus afterwards to clean out the remains (a D&C)... Under this new law that did pass, this woman would have to undergo an ultrasound previous to receiving a D&C...

If your wife lost a baby and just wanted to go to the hospital and have her D&C, would you think it's "no big deal" for her to have to have an unnecessary procedure and wait an additional 24 hours to get the dead remains out of her body?

Aside from the ridiculous idea of the government being between a doctor and patient, this bill is simply cruel to women.

STAND UP, WOMEN! Don't take this crap!



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Well thanks for that I didn't know they had to wait 24 hres and it also applied to miscarriages and rapes... that is sick.
edit on 23-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


I know... And the point is that NONE of these laws show any respect for the woman. It pisses me off more than I can say. The whole purpose of these laws is to manipulate women - to appeal to their maternal instinct and convince them not to do what they have already decided (with their doctor) to do... It's demeaning, disrespectful and short-sighted, the idea being that women aren't smart enough to make this decision on their own.



States and Ultrasound Abortion Laws



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Well in order to have an abortion you have to have a tube like object stuffed up you, same with a vaginal ultrasound. So people that cry invasive is a little bit much.


This is invasive, as opposed to an 'abortion', which, as we all know, is not an 'invasive procedure'. Yes, it would be a traumatising event for any such woman to have to experience, and far more so than having a living foetus cut from her womb and tossed into a medical garbage can.


She has to lie there on the table while the tech unnecessarily searches her body for the thing that could be easily removed.


The 'thing', is it? A lifeform in its most fragile stage of development, and we might be so bold as to call it a human one too, stopping our ears to the yelps and boos from the peanut gallery, is a mere 'thing'. With that one word you have judged yourself. Now repeat after me: "I sold my intellect to my will."

But - how careless of me - I forget my education at those institutions of the state that are so encouraging of free thought amongst the citizenry; humanity, I must remember, is a deus ex machina, descending like a dove from the heavens upon the hairless ape at some arbitrary point to be determined by a panel of judges; regarded and austere, it goes without saying, so long as they lean toward the left, anyway, as right is a synonym of wrong. Well, well, that's as it should be, good is evil, truth is falsehood, snow is black, infanticide is 'abortion', everything is anything one wants it to be (anything, and everything, so long as it is not of the EUropean tradition) and, Mr Winston - when will you accept it - two plus two is five. So, there is no right to life, only a right to the will. Heaven help you if you're no 'human' in the midst of this anthropocentric madness. Step aside! Step aside you lopwest of animals! Step aside you mere clusters of cells! Step aside for progress! Technological! Political! Moral! Onward humanity! Is it any wonder that the living earth is stained with the blood of martyrs? All must give way! Forest, ocean, mountain, stream, races of plant and animal, entire ecosystems, they must be raped, plundered and extinguished from existence for the sake of the freedom of the 'human' will to wander on the path of the insatiable 'ego'. The very air is tainted with the stench of this 'humanity'. Ironically, humanitas, if we are to look at its original meaning, is something none of these women, nor you, possesses.


The whole purpose of these laws is to manipulate women - to appeal to their maternal instinct and convince them not to do what they have already decided (with their doctor) to do


Now we have:

maternal instinct < 'rational' decisions

What more is there to add to this inequality to show the hostility toward life inherent in the logocentric yarn from which the philophasters who inform your 'opinions' of the day spin the ideology of postmodernity? Let us take this day our daily bread from the ideas of hysterical feminists, Frankfurt subversives and social-liberal ideologues. Amen.

Repeat after me once more: "I buried my instinct beneath social moralising."
edit on 23-2-2012 by PoeteMaudit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

But still, it's still BS since it's not the government business at all.


You're right. It's not the government's business. That people feel they ought to turn to a government to enforce what is traditionally mere common decency, that people turn to government to uphold the foundation of human life, the love of the mother for her child from conception until death, that people turn to government to stop females tearing their living offspring from their wombs to be sacrificed upon Molochian furnaces in glory to the gods of hedonistic materialism, all in the name of personal 'freedom' - a word whose irony is lost on these idotic females who pay taxes on their income, bow to bueraucratic laws, spend the formative years of their lives in state schools, tune their iPods to the charts, fill their minds with the garbage printed in the daily rags, keep the fashionable opinions of the day and glue themselves to the boob-tube every evening - is the surest sign of the sickness of 'Western' societies. To think people once took the slaughters of Roman arena for decadence!

Oh no, you "progressives" won't get me with your usual moral hysterics; I am the farthest thing from a Christian, I do not propose that government outlaw abortion, I'm not 'pro-life' as there is no love lost between me and the cretins who make up most of "modern society", I don't care for the game of words that is the debate over arbitrary definitions of what constitutes a "human" and where life "begins", and I'm not the least interested in the political and legal squabbling over the issue. No, none of that concerns me, but I will point out the fact, and a fact it is, that something is horribly wrong in a female of any species tearing the healthy offspring from her own womb. This is apart form the most extreme of life-or-death circumstances, in which acts of infanticide and cannibalism can naturally occur, anti-Darwinian behaviour at its most perverse, and can only have one outcome for the genetic lineage of those who succumb to it. If we witnessed such behaviour as we do amongst human females in the natural world we would not hesitate in describing it as pathological. Then again, perhaps this seemingly unnatural selection is but a kind of natural selection that will see those with healthy maternal attitudes outbreed all of you mentally ill females and the neutered males who kow-tow to you.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PoeteMaudit
 


That was quite the diatribe!

Abortion is not going to go away. It's been around before you were born and will still be going on well after your life has ended.




The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE.[3] A Chinese record documents the number of royal concubines who had abortions in China between the years 515 and 500 BCE.[4] According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.[5] Many of the methods employed in early and primitive cultures were non-surgical. Physical activities like strenuous labor, climbing, paddling, weightlifting, or diving were a common technique. Others included the use of irritant leaves, fasting, bloodletting, pouring hot water onto the abdomen, and lying on a heated coconut shell.[6] In primitive cultures, techniques developed through observation, adaptation of obstetrical methods, and transculturation.[7] Archaeological discoveries indicate early surgical attempts at the extraction of a fetus; however, such methods are not believed to have been common, given the infrequency with which they are mentioned in ancient medical texts.[8]





Much of what is known about the methods and practice of abortion in Greek and Roman history comes from early classical texts. Abortion, as a gynecological procedure, was primarily the province of women who were either midwives or well-informed laypeople. In his Theaetetus, Plato mentions a midwife's ability to induce abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.[9][10] It is thought unlikely that abortion was punished in classical Greece.[11]

In Aristotle's view, abortion, if performed early, was not the killing of something human,[12][13] and Aristotle would permit abortion if the birth rate was too high, but only at a stage before life and sense had begun in the embryo.[14] Aristotle considered the embryo to gain a human soul at 40 days if male and 90 days if female; before that, it had vegetable and animal souls.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 23-2-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by PoeteMaudit
 


Your "big words" and perfect grammar doesn't make you look any more intelligent. And your sarcastic statements are condescending. It's just not the best way to convince people that abortion is murder. Think of the plight of the babies !~!~!~


edit on 24-2-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join