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?

If you're trying to get me to admit that I'm in favor of late term abortions, you're not going to get anywhere. I personally wouldn't have one, but unlike you, I do not expect everyone to adhere to my moral code. I'm certain I don't agree with many of the decisions you've made regarding the conception, carrying, birthing and raising of your children. I'm certain you don't agree with many of my decisions. I am not telling you that you're not allowed to make those decisions. If you'd like to carry a pregnancy to term and then give that baby up for adoption, you should feel free to do that. If your doctor tells you that the fetus you're carrying has abnormalities that are incompatible with life and you'd like to carry that pregnancy to term as well, you should feel free to do that. It's not my business one way or another what you do. The only thing I'm asking is that when I am making decisions, with my husband and my doctor, about my reproductive rights, you stay out of those decisions because they are not yours to make.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:traffic was light on 66 this morning. I guess the boycott is working!

Totally. Just like how well the OWS movement worked. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

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

traffic was light on 66 this morning. I guess the boycott is working!

Anonymous wrote:
Let me repeat. I am never going too a Strore, a mall, a restaurant in Vriginia. and I will tell every single friend of mine considering living in va to boycott it. I will never send my daughter or son to college in Vriginia. I will not frequent a single business located in Virginia.

You'll forgive us if we don't shed any tears over you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 9:20, I dont see this mandate as trying to humiliate anyone. I think the purpose is straight forward, to personify the embryo heartbeat. To yes discourage abortions but not make them illegal. Its ironic one would consider this procedure humiliating yet jthe person seeking the abortiorn is perfectly willing to allow a doctor to remove the developing child from the womens body. If one women decides to reconsider their decision to abort its a worthy precident. I have suspicion it will. I was there for my wifes ultrasounds and it was remarkable, anything but humiliating.

Well, hell -- why not require the doctor to read the woman a copy of "Goodnight Moon"? Why not require the doctor to have a 9 month old baby in the room and force the woman to hold it? Why not require the doctor to just punch the woman repeatedly in the vagina before starting the procedure?
Of COURSE it's trying to humiliate the woman. It's trying to shame her into changing her mind. And it's an unconstitutional, offensive, and breathtakingly arrogant intrusion of the government literally into a woman's vagina.

Ok, so when my doc showed me an ultrasound of my tumor before it was removed, he was trying to humiliate me? Got it.

Did he force you to have the ultrasound? Or was it something you consented to?

Anonymous wrote:To 9:20, I dont see this mandate as trying to humiliate anyone. I think the purpose is straight forward, to personify the embryo heartbeat. To yes discourage abortions but not make them illegal. Its ironic one would consider this procedure humiliating yet jthe person seeking the abortiorn is perfectly willing to allow a doctor to remove the developing child from the womens body. If one women decides to reconsider their decision to abort its a worthy precident. I have suspicion it will. I was there for my wifes ultrasounds and it was remarkable, anything but humiliating.

They could just as easily decide that the abortionist has to show a video of a heartbeat during the procedure. At least that does not invade any one's vagina.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please give an example of another surgical procedure where a state assembly has passed a law that a patient MUST undergo some process as a part of the procedure.

Sure. For something far less medically dangerous, too. When you get your eyes examined any you're forced to have that invasive blast of air into your eye? That's REQUIRED BY LAW. Please don't act like your big government isn't in our space all the time.

Citation please.

Google is your friend.

I am not the poster asking for citation. I googled this and can't find it.

Please put up or shut up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 9:20, I dont see this mandate as trying to humiliate anyone. I think the purpose is straight forward, to personify the embryo heartbeat. To yes discourage abortions but not make them illegal. Its ironic one would consider this procedure humiliating yet jthe person seeking the abortiorn is perfectly willing to allow a doctor to remove the developing child from the womens body. If one women decides to reconsider their decision to abort its a worthy precident. I have suspicion it will. I was there for my wifes ultrasounds and it was remarkable, anything but humiliating.

Well, hell -- why not require the doctor to read the woman a copy of "Goodnight Moon"? Why not require the doctor to have a 9 month old baby in the room and force the woman to hold it? Why not require the doctor to just punch the woman repeatedly in the vagina before starting the procedure?
Of COURSE it's trying to humiliate the woman. It's trying to shame her into changing her mind. And it's an unconstitutional, offensive, and breathtakingly arrogant intrusion of the government literally into a woman's vagina.

Ok, so when my doc showed me an ultrasound of my tumor before it was removed, he was trying to humiliate me? Got it.

No, your doc showed you an ultrasound because your doc decided, using his medical expertise and evaluation of your individual circumstance, that it was the appropriate action to take. And if you didn't want to see it, I'm betting he would've removed the tumor anyway.

The Virginia Legislature, with NO medical expertise, has inserted itself into all relationships between a doctor and a woman to impose a wildly intrusive procedure for NO medical benefit because the legislature has decided that the woman is either dumb or not sufficiently ashamed of herself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 9:20, I dont see this mandate as trying to humiliate anyone. I think the purpose is straight forward, to personify the embryo heartbeat. To yes discourage abortions but not make them illegal. Its ironic one would consider this procedure humiliating yet jthe person seeking the abortiorn is perfectly willing to allow a doctor to remove the developing child from the womens body. If one women decides to reconsider their decision to abort its a worthy precident. I have suspicion it will. I was there for my wifes ultrasounds and it was remarkable, anything but humiliating.

Well, hell -- why not require the doctor to read the woman a copy of "Goodnight Moon"? Why not require the doctor to have a 9 month old baby in the room and force the woman to hold it? Why not require the doctor to just punch the woman repeatedly in the vagina before starting the procedure?
Of COURSE it's trying to humiliate the woman. It's trying to shame her into changing her mind. And it's an unconstitutional, offensive, and breathtakingly arrogant intrusion of the government literally into a woman's vagina.

Ok, so when my doc showed me an ultrasound of my tumor before it was removed, he was trying to humiliate me? Got it.

This reply is so irrelevant that it is actually baffling. If you think this is analogous in any way, you need to get a refund from whatever college you attended.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Roe is such bad law and will be overturned sooner or later regardless. With the age of Kennedy and Gins, I could see the next president nominating the game changer.

Roe is not a law. It was a court decision on the Constitutional right to privacy. You don't think a right to privacy exists?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 9:20, I dont see this mandate as trying to humiliate anyone. I think the purpose is straight forward, to personify the embryo heartbeat. To yes discourage abortions but not make them illegal. Its ironic one would consider this procedure humiliating yet jthe person seeking the abortiorn is perfectly willing to allow a doctor to remove the developing child from the womens body. If one women decides to reconsider their decision to abort its a worthy precident. I have suspicion it will. I was there for my wifes ultrasounds and it was remarkable, anything but humiliating.

Well, hell -- why not require the doctor to read the woman a copy of "Goodnight Moon"? Why not require the doctor to have a 9 month old baby in the room and force the woman to hold it? Why not require the doctor to just punch the woman repeatedly in the vagina before starting the procedure?
Of COURSE it's trying to humiliate the woman. It's trying to shame her into changing her mind. And it's an unconstitutional, offensive, and breathtakingly arrogant intrusion of the government literally into a woman's vagina.

Ok, so when my doc showed me an ultrasound of my tumor before it was removed, he was trying to humiliate me? Got it.