Virginia's New Restrictive Abortion Bills (Trigger Warning)

[cephalopod9]

Fundamentally, I find myself at such a loss in these debates. I'd love to say I feel the same way as most of the members of this forum and just come down hard on the side of pro-choice, but I can't. I may not agree, but I do not think it is crazy for someone to think that right to life trumps bodily autonomy, and please don't hurl analogies at me, because I've read a lot of them, and they've got their good points and their bad points, but pregnancy has such a unique place in society that I don't think they can really work.

In this case it's not a question of "do you like abortion? yes/no", it's "do you like mandatory vaginal probes? for the sole purpose of emotional blackmail?".
Even in a more general sense, laws don't and can't operate on an abstract or purely moral basis. You can think abortion is unacceptable and still be aware of the reality that it's going to happen whether or not it's legal and safely accessible.

To me, that makes discussions about late trimester abortions and partial birth abortions not worth talking about... although they are quite the lightening rod for inducing outrage. (as an aside, I think this video showing pregnancy through 9 weeks might help frame what, exactly, is being aborted)

I like how the pictures keep things in the context of the mother's body. It's creepy how many 'visualizations' of fetal development don't give it any context at all.

Another fun aside, this bunch apparently hasn't been in touch with the Rick Santorum crowd, because according to him, giving information to pregnant women is just terrible.

[Princess Marzipan]

Another fun aside, this bunch apparently hasn't been in touch with the Rick Santorum crowd, because according to him, giving information to pregnant women is just terrible.

"Santorum Santorum Says"
Took me a moment, but it's a bit brilliant.

[DSenette]

all the window breaking analogies are cute and all, but they don't actually apply when you're talking about things occurring inside the human body, and especially when they are things that are occurring in SOMEONE ELSE'S body entirely.

Huh? I thought this was a discussion of when a woman's right to bodily autonomy would trump the rights of a fetus (if it has any rights) such that she may terminate the pregnancy. The "someone else" is a fetus that the woman created through consensual sex, up till now that fetus was not someone else, but if the law is passed it will become someone else. If it is passed and the fetus becomes a "someone else," we will have to weigh the rights of the woman against the rights of the fetus. I'm saying that's a bad situation for pro-choice defenders, because I believe (based on hypotheticals and the way rights are treated in unrelated areas of life) that the rights of the fetus will be given more weight than the rights of the woman.

here are SEVERAL problems with this paragraph:

1: consent to sex != consent to pregnancy. you can full well have consenting sex without desiring a baby and still get pregnant. hell you could even want to have a baby, and then change your mind.

2: why are the rights of the fetus automatically higher than the rights of the woman? what's the actual justification for that? the child is the invader in that situation. no matter how the invasion came to be, the fetus is always automatically the one infringing on autonomy. at the second of conception the woman's bodily autonomy has been infringed upon, it's her right to decide whether or not that infringement is to be allowed. just like i can temporarily give you permission to make decisions about my medical well being, but as long as i'm competent i can revoke that permission.

Why do you believe that we should treat a person's rights completely differently from anything else simply because that person exists within another person? Sure, there will be some differences, but the right to exist is, well, inalienable. It's certainly the status quo, and would require a tremendously persuasive argument to convince most people that one person's right to live is less important than another person's right to control their body for a limited period of time, especially since the former exists because of the latter's voluntary action.

we don't have a problem with that decision anywhere else. my right for you to NOT take my kidney always trumps your right to exist. always. you can't force me to give up my bodily autonomy in ANY situation EVER.

there has NEVER been a legal case where punitive medical procedures were the solution to the grievance. ever. so giving some hypothetical where you would ever have the right to remove part of my body to fix part of your house is a worthless hypothetical.

even if you're talking about a direct body to body hypothetical, like me purposefully damaging your kidney, the person causing the damage would still never be morally or legally required or expected to then physically supply their own kidney to replace yours.

I'm pro-choice, but when the debate is framed as one person's rights verses another person's rights, I cannot think of a persuasive argument that allows one person to end another person's life as a lifestyle choice. I can think of arguments for ending one person's life to save the another's, or even because the mother was raped and didn't willingly participate in the action that let to the creation of the fetus. But I cannot think of a convincing argument for why a woman could consent to the activity that created the fetus then refuse the responsibility of bearing the fetus once it was created, if that fetus is a person. I can't imagine a moral argument that would allow for that, much less a legal one.

because consenting to having sex != consenting to conception or consenting to bringing a baby to full term.

besides that, the amount of women who use abortion as a contraception method are so statistically insignificant that you really can't argue for anything that remotely limits abortion rights to combat that action

[johnny_7713]

1: consent to sex != consent to pregnancy. you can full well have consenting sex without desiring a baby and still get pregnant. hell you could even want to have a baby, and then change your mind.

Doesn't / shouldn't (informed) consent to an activity imply consent to be exposed to the inherent risks of that activity? If you consent to sex you consent to the inherent risk of becoming pregnant (assuming it's biologically possible). I agree abortion should be available if you do become pregnant.

[DSenette]

1: consent to sex != consent to pregnancy. you can full well have consenting sex without desiring a baby and still get pregnant. hell you could even want to have a baby, and then change your mind.

Doesn't / shouldn't (informed) consent to an activity imply consent to be exposed to the inherent risks of that activity? If you consent to sex you consent to the inherent risk of becoming pregnant (assuming it's biologically possible). I agree abortion should be available if you do become pregnant.

you can accept the risk of possible conception without having to consent to the "responsibility" of pregnancy. accepting the possible risks of an action do not specifically mean you give consent to only one possible ramification of the results.

the argument there is basically "you did the dirty now you've got to pay up!".

[Izawwlgood]

1: consent to sex != consent to pregnancy. you can full well have consenting sex without desiring a baby and still get pregnant. hell you could even want to have a baby, and then change your mind.

Doesn't / shouldn't (informed) consent to an activity imply consent to be exposed to the inherent risks of that activity? If you consent to sex you consent to the inherent risk of becoming pregnant (assuming it's biologically possible). I agree abortion should be available if you do become pregnant.

This line of reasoning always totally befuddled me.
When I get on a bike, I am aware of the risks, so I wear a helmet. If I'm around traffic, I also choose to ride (more) safely.

Being aware of the risks at each step of the process, and the actions required to rectify the consequences of those risks is what makes someone responsible. Getting on a bike without a helmet would be idiotic, because I could fall and hurt my head. If I find myself near cars, I further adjust my habits to avoid getting hit; I don't weave or pop wheelies, and I'm aware of my surroundings.

The same can be said of an abortion; practicing safe sex is to prevent pregnancy. Abortion is thus another tool to rectify pregnancy if it is an unwanted accident. Pregnancy isn't an event horizon from which no mistake can or should return, it's simply another situation that comes with it, another set of considerations and avenues to deal with.

[johnny_7713]

1: consent to sex != consent to pregnancy. you can full well have consenting sex without desiring a baby and still get pregnant. hell you could even want to have a baby, and then change your mind.

Doesn't / shouldn't (informed) consent to an activity imply consent to be exposed to the inherent risks of that activity? If you consent to sex you consent to the inherent risk of becoming pregnant (assuming it's biologically possible). I agree abortion should be available if you do become pregnant.

This line of reasoning always totally befuddled me.
When I get on a bike, I am aware of the risks, so I wear a helmet. If I'm around traffic, I also choose to ride (more) safely.

Being aware of the risks at each step of the process, and the actions required to rectify the consequences of those risks is what makes someone responsible. Getting on a bike without a helmet would be idiotic, because I could fall and hurt my head. If I find myself near cars, I further adjust my habits to avoid getting hit; I don't weave or pop wheelies, and I'm aware of my surroundings.

The same can be said of an abortion; practicing safe sex is to prevent pregnancy. Abortion is thus another tool to rectify pregnancy if it is an unwanted accident. Pregnancy isn't an event horizon from which no mistake can or should return, it's simply another situation that comes with it, another set of considerations and avenues to deal with.

I think we are in agreement, though I have probably worded it poorly. I would argue consent to sex implies consent to the risk of getting pregnant, which is quite distinct from consent to bringing a baby to full term. As I said in my previous post, I believe abortion should be available in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

[Gellert1984]

Link

Spoiler:

Rebecca Greenfield 11,193 Views 2:27 PM ET

After an understandable uproar over a mandatory procedure that federal law would consider rape, Virginia legislators have opted to forgo the invasive and most definitely uncomfortable procedure for women seeking abortions. On top of a big invasion of privacy for all women, the legislation could have re-traumatized women who sought abortions because of rapes. A meeting last night led legislators to reconsider the vagina wand provision, reaching a compromise that would make the procedure voluntary, but not mandatory, reports The Washington Post. We're not sure what woman might choose to have an ultrasound used in this way, but, now they get a choice. And with that, the never-ending reproduction debates continue.

And here's self-proclaimed pro-lifer, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell backing away from the proposal in an official statement released this afternoon.

It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

TL;DR No more vaginal ultrasounds for abortions in virginian bills.

This makes me a little less unhappy.

[engr]

No I am not. I am assuming that a larger number of women are pro choice, and that by extension, a larger portion of the people who are against abortion are male than female.

[Shivahn]

It breaks up a bit more when you break the categories into abortion as "never ok" "sometimes ok" and "always ok," but yeah, despite what is often assumed and used for rhetoric, it's not an issue that would be significantly better if only women voted on it, except during the tiniest of time slices.