Ohio State Sen. says if men are so worried about wombs, then turnabout is fair play

[Minoosh]

Uhmm. Just musing here. But how about because:
She is a virgin and KNOWS she hasn't had sex with anyone before but.

I am talking about sexually active women who go to a clinic or doctor's office *for contraception*. This doesn't apply to virgins or people who have not had sex in months. I didn't state that because I thought it would be obvious.

And I don't know what cheating husbands have to do with it.

Now that people can buy highly accurate OTC pregnancy tests, it's less of an issue.

Or how about if, despite being considered a second class citizen by the loony right and not deemed important enough to deserve protection from sexual harassment and rape from her "supperior" officers she just returned from afganistan and knows she hasn't had sex.

What on Earth does this have to do with what I wrote? Or with a right wing man dumping his wife for a secretary? Please see the response to RandFan above and try to follow what I'm saying. Apologies if I wasn't clear, but it seems a couple of people have flown off the handle based on a misinterpretation of my post. What I said: It is logical to find out if a sexually active woman seeking contraception is pregnant and I've given my reasons.

 

[Muldur]

I loved how some people have tried to justify the law because "hey, if she can have intercourse what's she so worried about a probe for?".

Stupid people say that. Really stupid and ignorant people say that. It's a fallacy. What I do in the privacy of my home doesn't give the state warrant to force me to have an unnecessary medical procedure.

Why, so the woman doesn't have to actually "look in the eye" of the life she's conspiring to murder? So she can maintain the delusion that "it's just a blob" or whatever lie she's been talked into believing?

 

[Muldur]

for the supposed "small government" party, the republicans sure are clueless as to the meaning of "it's none of your ***** business!"

Protecting the lives of innocent human beings IS the proper business of government.

 

[Minoosh]

Hint: She already does.

I said: there is logic in pregnancy-testing women seeking contraception, not women seeking abortions. Although yeah, I think a pregnancy test wouldn't be out of line for a woman seeking an abortion. She could be throwing up and missing periods and feeling bloated for another reason that needs to be addressed. Mary Tudor had an abdominal tumor and interpreted it as pregnancy.

IMO men are missing some of the subtleties here.

 

[A'isha]

Why, so the woman doesn't have to actually "look in the eye" of the life she's conspiring to murder?

The eyes don't develop and open until the third trimester of pregnancy (after the window when virtually non-medical abortions are performed).

So she can maintain the delusion that "it's just a blob" or whatever lie she's been talked into believing?

You misspelled "actual science we would rather go with instead of the right-wing anti-abortion nonsense you're trying to peddle".

 

[Muldur]

(please see equivocate) The vast majority of cases are about a thinking, feeling human being (mother) and a fetus. Until (aprox) the age of viability there is no thinking feeling fetus.

And you know this how? Are you psychic?

8 week old pre-born babies are documented to have a fully developed touch stimulus response. That documents a fully developed nervous system in regards to physical stimuli, which includes pain.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/13

There is tissue. I had surgery to remove a 40 lb mass on my leg (edema). It was human tissue. It didn't think or feel and no one cares that I had it removed from my body. No one is ever going to shoot a surgeon simply because he or she removes human tissue. It's only when we label the unthinking, unfeeling tissue as a "another person" that people get up in arms.

See above.

 

[Muldur]

And considering that the imaginary father/son/wholly ghost Jewish zombie is the largest abortionist by orders of magnitude in the forms of miscarriages

A miscarriage is an unplanned tragedy, not the deliberate and willful act of the mother and so-called "doctor".

Next fail?

 

[Muldur]

The eyes don't develop and open until the third trimester of pregnancy (after the window when virtually non-medical abortions are performed).

Pedant non-argument, I made it clear that I was using the phrase in it's metaphorical sense.

You misspelled "actual science we would rather go with instead of the right-wing anti-abortion nonsense you're trying to peddle".

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, given the known scientific facts about the development of pre-born babies.

Your non-argument is as intellectually bankrupt as it is morally reprehensible.

 

[Minoosh]

Actually maybe women coming in for the Pill shouldn't be given pregnancy tests. Of course, they could be already pregnant, and the pills could make them miss periods and become nauseated, and they think they're not pregnant, but they are. Which defeats the whole purpose of seeking contraception, doesn't it?

 

[A'isha]

http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/13

A propaganda site that cites Ronald Reagan as an authority?

Yeah, no.

Pedant non-argument, I made it clear that I was using the phrase in it's metaphorical sense.

And I was pointing out the giant gaping holes in your argument that a fetus is a "person".

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, given the known scientific facts about the development of pre-born babies.

Like, they are undeveloped masses of cells for most of pregnancy?

Your non-argument is as intellectually bankrupt as it is morally reprehensible.

I wonder why the site you linked quotes what two former presidents of ACOG said back in Saint Reagan's era, but doesn't talk about what ACOG is actually saying right now.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

If someone is at Planned Parenthood to get birth control pills I can see the logic of the pregnancy test. For one thing why not have the information? If a woman doesn't want a baby wouldn't she be better off knowing if she's already pregnant? I could be wrong but I don't think this is a requirement the hard right dreamed up. It seems pretty practical.

And re: any other medication. There are potential consequences giving certain drugs to women who may become pregnant. Ditto certain X-rays. It's just not the case with men.

A woman who already knows there's no chance of pregnancy still must take the test, or not get her shot. The shot has to be given during the woman's period in order to be SURELY sure that she's not pregnant, regardless of the test results (so why do it? pointless intrusion). Miss the next shot date by a few days, get tested again, get another pelvic exam. I already know I'm not pregnant, why do I need to pee into a cup (and pay for the privilege) to prove it?

 

[Minoosh]

8 week old pre-born babies are documented to have a fully developed touch stimulus response. That documents a fully developed nervous system in regards to physical stimuli, which includes pain.

That's why I think we need to be clearheaded about this and acknowledge that a fetus is different than a tumor. Abortion kills a fetus, and maybe it does feel pain. The "feel pain" is a bit of a red herring to me but I don't mind it being pointed out. I just ... do you think abortion is something women do lightly? In the vast majority of cases, I think not. I hear a whiff of punishment for women who fornicate - very well, you've got a baby now! That will teach you! I have some respect for people who take a principled stance from the moment of conception, but not for people shaking their fingers at women for having sex and saying, "You should have thought of that before you spread your legs!" I don't think the shaming is humane or necessary or productive.

 

[Minoosh]

A woman who already knows there's no chance of pregnancy still must take the test, or not get her shot. The shot has to be given during the woman's period in order to be SURELY sure that she's not pregnant, regardless of the test results (so why do it? pointless intrusion).

I don't remember the period part. I'm trying to find out if the "pointless intrusion" comes from the religious right or is actually normal medical protocol, perhaps instituted by Planned Parenthood on its own initiative at its own clinics. I honestly don't know. If a girl/woman is of childbearing age, and has had sex, the possibility of pregnancy exists. I'm speculating that there is a non-sinister explanation for the protocol.

 

[marplots]

I don't remember the period part. I'm trying to find out if the "pointless intrusion" comes from the religious right or is actually normal medical protocol, perhaps instituted by Planned Parenthood on its own initiative at its own clinics. I honestly don't know. If a girl/woman is of childbearing age, and has had sex, the possibility of pregnancy exists. I'm speculating that there is a non-sinister explanation for the protocol.

I can think of one non-sinister reason: I don't want to be sued.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I don't remember the period part. I'm trying to find out if the "pointless intrusion" comes from the religious right or is actually normal medical protocol, perhaps instituted by Planned Parenthood on its own initiative at its own clinics. I honestly don't know. If a girl/woman is of childbearing age, and has had sex, the possibility of pregnancy exists. I'm speculating that there is a non-sinister explanation for the protocol.

Even if she doesn't have sex. Mostly she's assumed to be lying.

 

[Minoosh]

I can think of one non-sinister reason: I don't want to be sued.

If you have a procedure in place you need to follow it every time or you are creating liability issues. I don't remember if I had to get a pregnancy test before being given Depo-Provera. If I had, I wouldn't have taken it personally.

Even if she doesn't have sex. Mostly she's assumed to be lying.

Who is supposedly doing this assuming and do you have evidence that women who say they haven't had sex are widely assumed to be lying?

Maybe you work in a clinic and have behind-the-scenes knowledge. It wouldn't surprise me if health care workers shared a general awareness that patients are not always completely candid about a wide range of issues.

 

[Minoosh]

Yea one would say that if ones world view is stuck in the 19th century where those affected by said laws are deemed to be in need of oversight by those deemed supperior.

Christ on a cracker. Going back over my posts due to clarity concerns I realized I had missed this. I take it to mean you are saying my world view is stuck in the 19th century etc. This convoluted construction may indeed put you clear of JREF rules but I consider it a dishonest attack on my reputation.

Here is what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say in an FAQ section:

If you have already had sex, you may need to have a pregnancy test and STD test before birth control can be prescribed.

http://www.acog.org/~/media/For%20Patients/faq112.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20130703T2230476906

I say "it makes sense" and get attacked for it. I'm not interested in trading insults, veiled or unveiled. I presented a rational reason for the testing and was told, in essence, "a woman knows." OK, how does she know? Feminine intuition? By all means then, you defend woo, I'll defend pregnancy tests.

Now all these docs might happen to be misogynistic Victorian prigs who deem that women need oversight when it comes to diagnosing a medical condition. I'm willing to consider that. I'd be more interested in learning how this issue is regarded in the medical community. If I miss a shot by a few days, "know" I'm not pregnant and balk at peeing in a cup, I wouldn't pitch a fit at being told, "We have to be sure." Of course they do. They don't take my word for what size cervical cap I need either. They want to check under the hood.

Please, if you have evidence close to hand that indicates pregnancy test protocols are a direct result of a GOP plot to humiliate women, let me know. Because that's all some of you seem to think it is. And maybe you have evidence. I'm not an expert, I just did some quick Googling.

 

[Travis]

It's interesting that people are not commenting more on the analogy between the fetus and a penis. You'd be hard pressed to find a doctor who would perform a penectomy--especially if the procedure was part of a gender reassignment.

What does the fetus have to do with abortion laws that clearly are all about hating women?

This point needs to be played up by defenders of choice, then. IMO of course. If the rhetoric sounds like getting an abortion is exactly analogous to, say, getting your tonsils removed, you could lose some people with that argument. I don't hear the pro-choice side acknowledging that an unborn child is at some point a separate individual.

That's because it is never a separate individual while it is in the womb. It doesn't become a separate individual until it has self cognition.

One of my problems with pro-lifers is that so often they also appear to be anti-contraception.

That's because the real goal of pro-lifers is to keep people from having sinful sex. The fetus is merely a pawn in their game to force women into having their sin babies. That's why pro-lifers care nothing about the children once they are out of the womb as we can see in their opposition to all social safety net programs such as welfare, free school lunches or universal health care.

The all important distinction that you are deliberately ignoring is that a man's penile health affects no one but his own (except for the case of transmitting a VD perhaps).

Abortion is not about a woman's "health" in the overwhelming majority of cases, but rather about her desire to to carry a child she chose to help conceive.

Nope. Wrong. It has nothing to do with the fetus. That much is clear.

Further more, abortion has a decidedly negative impact, indeed a fatal impact, on the health of the pre-born baby.

You mean potential baby. And what does it matter? If I had been aborted I simply would never have existed. Is that such a big deal?

I am talking about sexually active women who go to a clinic or doctor's office *for contraception*. This doesn't apply to virgins or people who have not had sex in months. I didn't state that because I thought it would be obvious.

And what about young women that want contraceptives but don't plan on having sex?

And you know this how? Are you psychic?

8 week old pre-born babies are documented to have a fully developed touch stimulus response. That documents a fully developed nervous system in regards to physical stimuli, which includes pain.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/13





See above.

Being able to feel pain does not make something a person.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Who is supposedly doing this assuming and do you have evidence that women who say they haven't had sex are widely assumed to be lying?

Maybe you work in a clinic and have behind-the-scenes knowledge. It wouldn't surprise me if health care workers shared a general awareness that patients are not always completely candid about a wide range of issues.

More from a forum---a student doctors' forum with a very very long thread called What I Learned From My Patients. They always assume the patient is lying.

I'd not had sex in years, I can be absolutely certain that I'm not pregnant. I'd better have urine in my bladder and not be shy about it.

 

[marplots]

More from a forum---a student doctors' forum with a very very long thread called What I Learned From My Patients. They always assume the patient is lying.

I'd not had sex in years, I can be absolutely certain that I'm not pregnant. I'd better have urine in my bladder and not be shy about it.

Exactly. And why should I rely on anecdotal evidence when there's a relevant test available? Color me science-biased.