Is it okay to force a woman to have an ultrasound

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan_McVay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
An amendment by Del. David Englin, D-Alexandria, would have allowed medical professionals to determine whether images can be obtained without being penetrated by equipment used in the ultrasound.
Click to expand...
Women would have to give written consent to such a probe under Englin’s amendments, but not to sonograms that are not invasive. The amendment failed on 64-34 vote, setting the bill up for final House passage
Click to expand...
washingtonpost.com/local/va-house-set-to-enact-mandatory-invasive-ultrasound-probe-for-women-who-seek-abortions/2012/02/13/gIQA56vnBR_story.html
 
Dan_McVay said:
…to exercise her constitutional rights?

thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/17/427778/virginia-poised-to-enact-state-sponsored-rape-law-forcing-women-to-be-vaginally-probed-before-abortions/?mobile=wp
Click to expand...
Yes. Just because something is considered a “right” doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated or that there isn’t a cost. In some states, you must be “penetrated” by a needle to obtain the blood needed to have testing before marriage. To have an ultrasound is not inherently more invasive than that.

If a woman **chooses **to pursue an abortion, she is **choosing **to accept the accompanying pre-abortion procedures. If she doesn’t want an ultrasound, she can choose not to get an abortion.
 
Corki said:
Yes. Just because something is considered a “right” doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated or that there isn’t a cost. In some states, you must be “penetrated” by a needle to obtain the blood needed to have testing before marriage. To have an ultrasound is not inherently more invasive than that.

If a woman **chooses **to pursue an abortion, she is **choosing **to accept the accompanying pre-abortion procedures. If she doesn’t want an ultrasound, she can choose not to get an abortion.
Click to expand...
Would you be okay with a woman being forced to be vaginally penetrated before she gets married? Would it be okay to force a woman to be vaginally penetrated before she is allowed to exercise any right?
 
Would it be okay to say that before a woman chooses to work, she has to be vaginally penetrated? She could, of course, choose not to work.
 
Dan_McVay said:
Would it be okay to say that before a woman chooses to work, she has to be vaginally penetrated? She could, of course, choose not to work.
Click to expand...
What would be the purpose? There has to be a reason to do the test. The situation in the OP isn’t just randomly giving ultrasounds for no reason. It is for a specific result.

Let’s say a woman chooses to work in a lab with exposure to radiation. The employer can only employ non-pregnant women in this particular lab. If the vaginal ultra-sound is the only way to ensure that they aren’t unintentionally exposing a child to fatal radiation, then “yes”, it would be okay to require an untrasound if the woman chooses to pursue that job.
 
Dan_McVay said:
Would you be okay with a woman being forced to be vaginally penetrated before she gets married? Would it be okay to force a woman to be vaginally penetrated before she is allowed to exercise any right?
Click to expand...
The determining factor is in what is considered a reasonable demand in order to undergo the treatment. You can’t give blood unless you are willing to answer some questions about your sexual history. Is this a breach of a person’s right to privacy? No, its common sense and a completely acceptable breach of someones freedom to not give out that kind of information.

If you have a problem with requiring a woman who wants to have an abortion to get a sonogram, you need to show why you believe this is an unreasonable demand given the procedure that is going to occur.
 
So a woman is going to allow all sorts of equipment further inside her body for the pirpose of killling the child in her womb, equipment which can rupture her uterus, btw, and you are outraged by this?

I’m sorry, I can’t figure out the logic of this At All.
 
Having an abortion is not a woman’s right. It is the murder of an innocent child. Just because it’s legal does not make it right.
 
St_Francis said:
So a woman is going to allow all sorts of equipment further inside her body for the pirpose of killling the child in her womb, equipment which can rupture her uterus, btw, and you are outraged by this?

I’m sorry, I can’t figure out the logic of this At All.
Click to expand...
I agree with you-I am still dismayed that our country allowed abortions, or murdering of the unborn in the name of choice. How tragic-I had a friend that unfortunately chose aborting her twins to later regret it. I was in a similar situation as her-going through a divorce and learning I was pregnant with my now 9-yr-old daughter. Thankfully, it never crossed my mind to “terminate” my pregnancy. I almost gave her up for adoption, though-but kept her after a friend in the air force reserves convinced me to put my faith in God and keep her. I had two older children-so yes-I am in favor of whatever tactics necessary to save the children’s lives. I heard all these years on women’s rights yet what about the children’s rights? There are two people involved here, not one. I am a feminist yet against killing the innocent-and that is what abortion is.:mad: :mad:
 
Dan_McVay said:
…to exercise her constitutional rights?

thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/17/427778/virginia-poised-to-enact-state-sponsored-rape-law-forcing-women-to-be-vaginally-probed-before-abortions/?mobile=wp
Click to expand...
This is a strawman argument. An ultrasound examination is already done before an abortion, always. The abortionist doesn’t go in blind.

The ultrasound is required to locate the fetus. They need to know where the baby is so it can be chopped into parts and removed or sucked out with a vacuum.

What is different is allowing the mother to see the ultrasound rather than ‘protecting’ her from seeing her baby before she has him/her killed since that would cause trauma. They would see that their baby is not just a blob of cells like they’ve been told and know that they are killing a human being.

This argument about penetration is a diversion. The abortion procedure itself is extremely invasive in this regard. The ultrasound is the least of it.
 
Dan_McVay said:
Would you be okay with a woman being forced to be vaginally penetrated before she gets married? Would it be okay to force a woman to be vaginally penetrated before she is allowed to exercise any right?
Click to expand...
What right?
 
Corki said:
Yes. Just because something is considered a “right” doesn’t mean it can’t be regulated or that there isn’t a cost. In some states, you must be “penetrated” by a needle to obtain the blood needed to have testing before marriage. To have an ultrasound is not inherently more invasive than that.

If a woman **chooses **to pursue an abortion, she is **choosing **to accept the accompanying pre-abortion procedures. If she doesn’t want an ultrasound, she can choose not to get an abortion.
Click to expand...
And she can choose C - leave the state and obtain an abortion without the ultrasound and all of the above chaos.
:cool:
 
St_Francis said:
So a woman is going to allow all sorts of equipment further inside her body for the pirpose of killling the child in her womb, equipment which can rupture her uterus, btw, and you are outraged by this?

I’m sorry, I can’t figure out the logic of this At All.
Click to expand...
Ditto: I’m no expert, but don’t abortion techniques consists of inserting some kind of instrument up the birth canal and entering the womb in order to kill the baby, so I’m not sure how this is different.

Apparently looking at the baby is tantamount to rape, but killing the baby is choice.:confused:
 
  1. Abortions can be chemical. No penetrative procedure required.
  2. The legislature rejected an amendment to allow doctors to perform a non-penetrative ultrasound.
  3. The ultrasound is required even if the doctor does not think it is necessary.
  4. The right to abortion is a recognized right. See Roe v. Wade.
  5. Birthing a child usually requires a penetrative act. Would it be okay to, force a woman to have a non-necessary penetrative ultrasound before having baby.
 
triumphguy said:
Ditto: I’m no expert, but don’t abortion techniques consists of inserting some kind of instrument up the birth canal and entering the womb in order to kill the baby, so I’m not sure how this is different.

Apparently looking at the baby is tantamount to rape, but killing the baby is choice.:confused:
Click to expand...
Difference = choice
 
Dan_McVay said:
  1. Abortions can be chemical. No penetrative procedure required.
  2. The legislature rejected an amendment to allow doctors to perform a non-penetrative ultrasound.
  3. The ultrasound is required even if the doctor does not think it is necessary.
  4. The right to abortion is a recognized right. See Roe v. Wade.
  5. Birthing a child usually requires a penetrative act. Would it be okay to, force a woman to have a non-necessary penetrative ultrasound before having baby.
Click to expand...
Here’s a copy of the bill as it currently stands. I was unable to find the part where they require a transvaginal ultrasound. Maybe you can find it.

I am still trying to figure out what the uproar is about. It would be like my complaining that the dentist is spraying something in my mouth but not bothering about the fact that he is then sticking a needle into my gums. Or maybe complainibg about someone sratching the side of my car with a key while having given permission for someone to wreck the entire car.
 
Dan_McVay said:
Difference = choice
Click to expand...
The choice is still there. If she chooses to have an abortion, she chooses the procedures that go along with it - before, during and after. It is no different than any medical procedure. If you go in for elective surgery, you elect to also usually have blood work done, a chest x-ray taken, etc. It’s a package deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top