Boycott Virginia - new abortion law, new personhood law..... War on woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people who want to regulate what you eat, what you drive, what you say etc are all up in arms because the government is now submitting them to one extra procedure before they extinguish a life. Nice liberal hypocrisy.

So of like the party of small, non intrusive government voting in a law that forces an invasive procedure on a woman who wants to exercise her legal right to medical care.

[Anonymous]

That is untrue and mis-information guided by the recent uproar of the government mandating Catholics institutions to provide mandatory contraceptives. Most religious groups actually support birth control and teach it in their marriage classes as a means to plan a family. You are trying to drum up an issue with making parallels to the wrong groups. FYI Virginia legislature isn't majority catholic.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

DOUBLE BULLSHIT! "Provide mandatory contraceptives"???? You make it sound like people are going to hold catholics down and throw the pills down their throat, and wash it down with holy water.

HEALTHCARE plans and institutions have to give their employees and patients the OPTION to choose birth control if it is what the INDIVIDUAL opts for. No church is going to have to hand out Ortho Tricycline or perform abortions in the basement cafeteria for goodness sakes.

Again, a woman's health care choices and options should be decided by the woman and her doctor. NOT the VA state assembly and NOT her employer if she happens to work for a catholic organization.

[Anonymous]

Whether you agree with that or not: If you are a conservative, you should be very worried about a regime that thinks it's OK to issue mandates about what happens between a citizen and their doctor.

Don't be silly. Remember when health care reform was being debated, and many were up in arms about the mere possibility that an end-of-life discussion was required between a health care provider and a patient? I'm sure none of those people are the same people who think it's perfectly OK for the government to mandate an invasive non-medically required - or even medically helpful - procedure before a woman obtains a perfectly legal medical procedure. They're known the world over for their intellectual consistency.

Right?

Wait, what? You're OK with the government inserting (pun very much intended) itself into your relationship with your doctor and your treatment decisions when you agree with the purpose of the intrusion? I see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia can't outlaw abortions because of Roe v Wade. What is the point of this bill? Has the governor made any mention of signing it?

A state will eventually pass it, but one would think the Supreme Court would reject it because of the Roe v Wade and Griswold v Connecticut rulings.

Am I missing something here?

Yes. It's unconstitutional. I don't know why people are wasting so much time discussing it and getting heated about it.

I have not gotten thru the whole thread, but I feel the need to address this.

It's unconstitutional now, but all of these laws are meant to being passed knowing they will be challenged in the hopes that Roe will be narrowed or overturned. We are a generation of women who have become complacent because we think Roe and Griswold will protect us, but the law, while slow moving, is not static. It is moving more conservative. The rights we women have taken as givens in our lifetimes
may not be there for our daughters.

I don't understand why we are on DCUM complaining and why we are not writing letters and voting for the prochoice candidates.

And if you think it is just abortion rights we need to be worried about, there is now an assault on rights to birth control. Once the personhood law is place, what's next?

You only need to visit the Holocaust Museum to understand how rights can be chipped away so slowly that no one notices until a population is marginalized and second class. The history of the slow but tolerable law changes that affected the Jews so litlle each time that they didn't complain. Bigger changes become easier after so many inconsequential ones.

You are crazy to think that the holocaust victims are the same as not having abortion rights. If anything a stronger parallel to killing the unborn can be drawn to the holocaust IF IN FACT the unborn cut off date for life was erroneous and abortion was indeed determined to be murder.

I knew someone would not understand the holocaust museum reference. It wasnt about the holocaust, it was about the chipping away of rights.

And as for the cut off date in Roe, it was about viability. When could the fetus survive outside the womb? Science has undoubtedly changed that timing now, but ask any mother of a micro preemie and they'll tell you viability doesn't mean anything to survival and quality of life.

Have you ever read the Roe decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the outrage over a stupid ultrasound but zero outrage or any feeling whatsoever over the life of the innocent baby? seriously, step back 5 feet and think this through.

Because it is still my body and my decision, not yours. Because this law assumes that I am too stupid to make fully informed decisions. You should feel free to carry as many pregnancies as you want to term. That's your choice. You don't get to take my choice away from me because you disagree with me.

The issue is that there is a large portion of the world that believes a baby regardless of stage is another human being. Now the question is at what point is it? I believe we will see that it is probably at 14-16 weeks especially with new technology that can detect brain waves pain etc... so your argument will not be valid

Yes, it will be. Because it's still my body. I know you really don't like that and you disagree with my opinion and think I'm a horrible baby killing monster or whatever, but it's still MY BODY. NOT YOURS.

but it isn't your body at that point - it is a separate body. separate DNA, separate heart, separate brain, separate. a 2 month old baby won't survive a weekend without care from his parents. how is that any different 6 months earlier?

It's not separate. It's a symbiant of a particular host that cannot be removed from the host and survive. A two month old cant be cared for by someone else. It is not dependent on the host, it's just dependent.

3

Third trimester babies can survive outside of the mother's body. If it boils down to ability to live separate from the womb, then that falls apart in the realm of third trimester abortions.

It's not merely a quetion of survivability. It's a question of whether another human has a right to reside in you. Or do you have the right to remove it. Whatever the consequences to the human being removed.

A right to reside in you? Your actions invited him/her/it in! Don't act all surprised. Unless you're Mary, cause that would be surprising.

[Anonymous]

Whether you agree with that or not: If you are a conservative, you should be very worried about a regime that thinks it's OK to issue mandates about what happens between a citizen and their doctor.

Don't be silly. Remember when health care reform was being debated, and many were up in arms about the mere possibility that an end-of-life discussion was required between a health care provider and a patient? I'm sure none of those people are the same people who think it's perfectly OK for the government to mandate an invasive non-medically required - or even medically helpful - procedure before a woman obtains a perfectly legal medical procedure. They're known the world over for their intellectual consistency.

Right?

Wait, what? You're OK with the government inserting (pun very much intended) itself into your relationship with your doctor and your treatment decisions when you agree with the purpose of the intrusion? I see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:by the way, all of our ultrasounds were done over the belly. what is up with the "vaginal rape" nonsense?

Every early ultrasound I have had in my five pregnancies (3 of which did not get past 12 weeks) was done with a vaginal probe because the embryo (not yet even a fetus) is too small to see with a belly scan. For reference, at best it's an egg sac with a yolk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Whether you agree with that or not: If you are a conservative, you should be very worried about a regime that thinks it's OK to issue mandates about what happens between a citizen and their doctor.

Don't be silly. Remember when health care reform was being debated, and many were up in arms about the mere possibility that an end-of-life discussion was required between a health care provider and a patient? I'm sure none of those people are the same people who think it's perfectly OK for the government to mandate an invasive non-medically required - or even medically helpful - procedure before a woman obtains a perfectly legal medical procedure. They're known the world over for their intellectual consistency.

Right?

Wait, what? You're OK with the government inserting (pun very much intended) itself into your relationship with your doctor and your treatment decisions when you agree with the purpose of the intrusion? I see.

If you are the same poster who claimed earlier that the government mandates that we have to have air blown in our eyes, I am not sure I believe you. But I invite you to cite a source that says the government now mandates that conversation.

If they do mandate that conversation - are you comparing a conversation with a vaginal wanding? Because if so, I'm guessing you are a guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia can't outlaw abortions because of Roe v Wade. What is the point of this bill? Has the governor made any mention of signing it?

A state will eventually pass it, but one would think the Supreme Court would reject it because of the Roe v Wade and Griswold v Connecticut rulings.

Am I missing something here?

Yes. It's unconstitutional. I don't know why people are wasting so much time discussing it and getting heated about it.

I have not gotten thru the whole thread, but I feel the need to address this.

It's unconstitutional now, but all of these laws are meant to being passed knowing they will be challenged in the hopes that Roe will be narrowed or overturned. We are a generation of women who have become complacent because we think Roe and Griswold will protect us, but the law, while slow moving, is not static. It is moving more conservative. The rights we women have taken as givens in our lifetimes
may not be there for our daughters.

I don't understand why we are on DCUM complaining and why we are not writing letters and voting for the prochoice candidates.

And if you think it is just abortion rights we need to be worried about, there is now an assault on rights to birth control. Once the personhood law is place, what's next?

You only need to visit the Holocaust Museum to understand how rights can be chipped away so slowly that no one notices until a population is marginalized and second class. The history of the slow but tolerable law changes that affected the Jews so litlle each time that they didn't complain. Bigger changes become easier after so many inconsequential ones.

You are crazy to think that the holocaust victims are the same as not having abortion rights. If anything a stronger parallel to killing the unborn can be drawn to the holocaust IF IN FACT the unborn cut off date for life was erroneous and abortion was indeed determined to be murder.

I knew someone would not understand the holocaust museum reference. It wasnt about the holocaust, it was about the chipping away of rights.

And as for the cut off date in Roe, it was about viability. When could the fetus survive outside the womb? Science has undoubtedly changed that timing now, but ask any mother of a micro preemie and they'll tell you viability doesn't mean anything to survival and quality of life.

Have you ever read the Roe decision?

You still look like an idiot with that comparison. Chipping away of rights based soley on religion is comparable how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get the outrage over a stupid ultrasound but zero outrage or any feeling whatsoever over the life of the innocent baby? seriously, step back 5 feet and think this through.

Because it is still my body and my decision, not yours. Because this law assumes that I am too stupid to make fully informed decisions. You should feel free to carry as many pregnancies as you want to term. That's your choice. You don't get to take my choice away from me because you disagree with me.

The issue is that there is a large portion of the world that believes a baby regardless of stage is another human being. Now the question is at what point is it? I believe we will see that it is probably at 14-16 weeks especially with new technology that can detect brain waves pain etc... so your argument will not be valid

Yes, it will be. Because it's still my body. I know you really don't like that and you disagree with my opinion and think I'm a horrible baby killing monster or whatever, but it's still MY BODY. NOT YOURS.

but it isn't your body at that point - it is a separate body. separate DNA, separate heart, separate brain, separate. a 2 month old baby won't survive a weekend without care from his parents. how is that any different 6 months earlier?

It's not separate. It's a symbiant of a particular host that cannot be removed from the host and survive. A two month old cant be cared for by someone else. It is not dependent on the host, it's just dependent.

3

Third trimester babies can survive outside of the mother's body. If it boils down to ability to live separate from the womb, then that falls apart in the realm of third trimester abortions.

Yup. That's what Roe said except in terms of weeks, not trimesters. Seems like you agree with those that agree with Roe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by the way, all of our ultrasounds were done over the belly. what is up with the "vaginal rape" nonsense?

I think before 11 weeks or so they use "transvaginal" ultrasound for better accuracy. It's a "probe" that goes inside you. My 8 week dating sono was this. At my NT test at 11w4d, they did both kinds, looking at different things.

well just clarify the law that you have to do the over-the-belly kind. problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That is untrue and mis-information guided by the recent uproar of the government mandating Catholics institutions to provide mandatory contraceptives. Most religious groups actually support birth control and teach it in their marriage classes as a means to plan a family. You are trying to drum up an issue with making parallels to the wrong groups. FYI Virginia legislature isn't majority catholic.

Good, because I would be absolutely horrified if contraceptives and education about their proper use were made available to people who are not taking marriage classes in their church. The real problem here is that women cannot control their sexuality, and are sleeping around. Why the hell should my tax dollars go to these godless sluts so they can be loose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That is untrue and mis-information guided by the recent uproar of the government mandating Catholics institutions to provide mandatory contraceptives. Most religious groups actually support birth control and teach it in their marriage classes as a means to plan a family. You are trying to drum up an issue with making parallels to the wrong groups. FYI Virginia legislature isn't majority catholic.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

DOUBLE BULLSHIT! "Provide mandatory contraceptives"???? You make it sound like people are going to hold catholics down and throw the pills down their throat, and wash it down with holy water.

HEALTHCARE plans and institutions have to give their employees and patients the OPTION to choose birth control if it is what the INDIVIDUAL opts for. No church is going to have to hand out Ortho Tricycline or perform abortions in the basement cafeteria for goodness sakes.

Again, a woman's health care choices and options should be decided by the woman and her doctor. NOT the VA state assembly and NOT her employer if she happens to work for a catholic organization.

I guess it's safe to say that we can all agree on one issue, you are probably NOT catholic . hah. Mandatory in reference to that all health plans are to provide conraceptievs as mandatory. Even though I think that the contraceptive banning is stupid the issue here is that a PP stated the same people are going to ban birth control as if the entire population or legislature hold the same religon and belief as Catholics. In FACT it shows the PP's ignorance and stereo typing by lumping anyone who supports the measure as the same group of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:by the way, all of our ultrasounds were done over the belly. what is up with the "vaginal rape" nonsense?

I think before 11 weeks or so they use "transvaginal" ultrasound for better accuracy. It's a "probe" that goes inside you. My 8 week dating sono was this. At my NT test at 11w4d, they did both kinds, looking at different things.

well just clarify the law that you have to do the over-the-belly kind. problem solved.

They do a vaginal probe because an over-the-belly ultrasound would be completely inaccurate, which would make the law even more ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia can't outlaw abortions because of Roe v Wade. What is the point of this bill? Has the governor made any mention of signing it?

A state will eventually pass it, but one would think the Supreme Court would reject it because of the Roe v Wade and Griswold v Connecticut rulings.

Am I missing something here?

Yes. It's unconstitutional. I don't know why people are wasting so much time discussing it and getting heated about it.

I have not gotten thru the whole thread, but I feel the need to address this.

It's unconstitutional now, but all of these laws are meant to being passed knowing they will be challenged in the hopes that Roe will be narrowed or overturned. We are a generation of women who have become complacent because we think Roe and Griswold will protect us, but the law, while slow moving, is not static. It is moving more conservative. The rights we women have taken as givens in our lifetimes
may not be there for our daughters

I don't understand why we are on DCUM complaining and why we are not writing letters and voting for the prochoice candidates.

And if you think it is just abortion rights we need to be worried about, there is now an assault on rights to birth control. Once the personhood law is place, what's next?

You only need to visit the Holocaust Museum to understand how rights can be chipped away so slowly that no one notices until a population is marginalized and second class. The history of the slow but tolerable law changes that affected the Jews so litlle each time that they didn't complain. Bigger changes become easier after so many inconsequential ones.

You are crazy to think that the holocaust victims are the same as not having abortion rights. If anything a stronger parallel to killing the unborn can be drawn to the holocaust IF IN FACT the unborn cut off date for life was erroneous and abortion was indeed determined to be murder.

I knew someone would not understand the holocaust museum reference. It wasnt about the holocaust, it was about the chipping away of rights.

And as for the cut off date in Roe, it was about viability. When could the fetus survive outside the womb? Science has undoubtedly changed that timing now, but ask any mother of a micro preemie and they'll tell you viability doesn't mean anything to survival and quality of life.

Have you ever read the Roe decision?

You still look like an idiot with that comparison. Chipping away of rights based soley on religion is comparable how?

Ok, so the group being discriminated against in Germany was the Jews (and gays and gypsies etc) . In Virginia, it's women. I guess I am an idiot for comparing one group being discriminated against with another group being discriminated against. The key analogy here is that the group being discriminated against at first didn't really recognize the slippery slope they were on. Women need to recognize the slippery slope all over the US.

Haven't you heard birth control is bad per almost all the Republican presidential candidates? It's not just about abortion rights. It's about women's rights in general.