RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Aylee -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 1:57:00 AM)

They agree: if you are part of that nasty 10% of women , who are not standard, you can die. But, abortions for all!




farglebargle -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 5:46:11 AM)

See, Aylee, the difference between what you're talking about and this is simple. On on hand, you're talking about a physician ordering a medical procedure which gives the patient a clear benefit. In cases where a normal pelvic exam turns up potential issues, they order additional diagnostics. Easy Peasy.

I'm not sure why someone would suggest that this is a bad thing, or that by insisting on only medically necessary ultrasounds, that medically necessary ultrasounds WOULDN'T be done.

Now, the problem everyone is having is that is NOT WHAT THE LEGISLATION DOES AT ALL.

What the legislation does is insert The People into the private relationship between a patient and doctor in the exam room and says, WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, AND WITH SOME RISK BUT WITHOUT ANY MEDICAL BENEFIT, YOU MUST SUBMIT TO THIS INVASIVE PROCEDURE.

And people are real uncomfortable when The State is ORDERING THEM to do things which -- in some circles of legal thought -- the Patient is UNABLE TO GIVE INFORMED CONSENT TO. You can't give informed consent after knowing the risks/benefits of a procedure IF THERE IS NO BENEFIT.

Again, your example isn't apples-to-apples with the legislation. And everyone support YOUR PHYSICIANS CHOICE, but we're terrified when he's ordered to do things which generally convey no medical benefits.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 8:12:58 AM)

Question for you Aylee. If 10% of women have nonstandard uteri, and an additional procedure is needed to make an abortion safe, can we assume that a sonogram or ultrasound is already being done? Or are 10% of women who get Abortions dying from them? That would be news to me.
The purpose of the VA law is NOT to make abortions safer for the woman having one. It is punitive, and your argument otherwise is pretty disingenuous. If this probe thing was truly necessary, doctors would already be doing it. Their malpractice carriers would insist
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

They agree: if you are part of that nasty 10% of women , who are not standard, you can die. But, abortions for all!





Aylee -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 9:26:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Question for you Aylee. If 10% of women have nonstandard uteri, and an additional procedure is needed to make an abortion safe, can we assume that a sonogram or ultrasound is already being done? Or are 10% of women who get Abortions dying from them? That would be news to me.


I commented before that I thought that before and after sonograms were standard for abortions.

The non-standard uteri makes it difficult to get pregnant and to keep the child to term, so I would guess that they get fewer abortions in the first place.

quote:

The purpose of the VA law is NOT to make abortions safer for the woman having one.


Really? Because it horrified me to find out that they are not doing them. That is a pre-test that should be done.

Women are still dying from legal abortions. Not many. But it still happens.

quote:

It is punitive, and your argument otherwise is pretty disingenuous. If this probe thing was truly necessary, doctors would already be doing it. Their malpractice carriers would insist


The "probe thing" (it is called a vaginal transducer) is only for women in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy.

As I said, I think that most doctors are doing the sonograms.



SoftBonds -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 9:32:22 AM)

Aylee, I'm not a doctor, but I think there is a cross-communication here.
I suspect that for the reason you indicate, most women who get abortions get an EXTERNAL sonogram, where they get jelly on the belly and the sonogram looks through the stomach wall.
The law folks are complaining about says "Doctors, we don't care about your professional opinion of what is needed, if a woman wants an abortion shove a probe up her vagina and do an INTERNAL sonogram."
I think that is the crux of the debate, and I'd like to hear your opinion on that issue, not whether or not doctors are giving EXTERNAL sonograms to women for medically necessary reasons.



farglebargle -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 9:42:10 AM)

If you stop at "Doctors, we don't care about your professional opinion, or that this procedure has risk but no medical benefit" you've encapsulated the debate.



Lucylastic -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 9:56:38 AM)

State mandated law to invade a females body.
And to look and or hear the heartbeat Before abortion is carried out, to install GUILT and fear, if no pic or heart beat is listened to , they get it put on their medical records.
Consent is NOT neccessary,
PLUS makign her pay for her own "rape" and show.
PLUS a waiting period
THATS the REAL position
all the rest is cutesy diversion, but like with virginia republicans, they dont give a shit



Daddysredhead -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 10:32:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Question for you Aylee. If 10% of women have nonstandard uteri, and an additional procedure is needed to make an abortion safe, can we assume that a sonogram or ultrasound is already being done? Or are 10% of women who get Abortions dying from them? That would be news to me.
The purpose of the VA law is NOT to make abortions safer for the woman having one. It is punitive, and your argument otherwise is pretty disingenuous. If this probe thing was truly necessary, doctors would already be doing it. Their malpractice carriers would insist
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

They agree: if you are part of that nasty 10% of women , who are not standard, you can die. But, abortions for all!





[sm=applause.gif]



farglebargle -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 10:36:54 AM)

When you're done with you're little circle-jerk there, do you want to address the reality that no-one is suggesting that MEDICALLY NECESSARY TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUNDS NOT BE DONE. And therefore all your 'abortions for all' pearl clutching histrionics is unjustified and just makes you look like you're unreliably melodramatic.

We're just objecting to the medically unnecessary ones with risk but no benefit. The ones your doctor doesn't order because of a need. What do we call it when a physician orders unnecessary procedures boy and girls?

MALPRACTICE!



Aylee -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 2:17:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

Aylee, I'm not a doctor, but I think there is a cross-communication here.
I suspect that for the reason you indicate, most women who get abortions get an EXTERNAL sonogram, where they get jelly on the belly and the sonogram looks through the stomach wall.

Yes. I think that they should be getting sonograms before an abortion. For a multitude of reasons.

I also think that a woman should have a sono after an abortion.

quote:

The law folks are complaining about says "Doctors, we don't care about your professional opinion of what is needed, if a woman wants an abortion shove a probe up her vagina and do an INTERNAL sonogram."


Then they are fucking stupid. Something internal NEEDS to be done to make sure a woman is pregnant. The old fashioned way is with a speculum to check the color of the cervix. Now we can use a sono.

The only reason that an INTERNAL sonogram would be done is because the woman is six weeks or less pregnant.

quote:

I think that is the crux of the debate, and I'd like to hear your opinion on that issue, not whether or not doctors are giving EXTERNAL sonograms to women for medically necessary reasons.

How do you verify that a woman is pregnant before performing an abortion? What if it is an ectopic pregnancy? Shouldn't you KNOW this?

I have had two living children. The first they went urine, blood, then sono to verify. The second they went urine then sono to verify.

This law wants to cut out the sono.

I say NO. Get the sono to check out the uterus, position of the baby, and the fact that you are actually pregnant.

I can't believe that they need to mandate common sense. Or that there is a problem with it.



Aylee -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 2:19:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

In cases where a normal pelvic exam turns up potential issues, they order additional diagnostics. Easy Peasy.



So. . . a "normal pelvic exam" is NOT rape, but a vaginal transducer is.

What color is the sky on your world?

Do you even know what a pelvic exam entails?



Daddysredhead -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 3:32:30 PM)

I agree Fargle and that no one is even talking about what a doctor does during the course of routine gyn exams here, it's about state mandated invasive procedures because the state lawmakers are opposed to the idea of abortions being performed period.

I also agree that the argument in the alternative makes you (Aylee) seem a bit "undone" and hysterical. Merely my opinion however.



farglebargle -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 3:41:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Yes. I think that they should be getting sonograms before an abortion. For a multitude of reasons.


Well, since you're not a doctor, your opinion and reasons matter a whole lot, and don't matter AT ALL when you're discussing anyone but yourself.

Thank you for playing. Try again soon.

quote:



quote:

The law folks are complaining about says "Doctors, we don't care about your professional opinion of what is needed, if a woman wants an abortion shove a probe up her vagina and do an INTERNAL sonogram."


Then they are fucking stupid. Something internal NEEDS to be done to make sure a woman is pregnant. The old fashioned way is with a speculum to check the color of the cervix. Now we can use a sono.


Of course the determination of that is not left up to you, but rather THE PATIENT AND THEIR DOCTOR.

WHY DO YOU KEEP THINKING THAT YOUR OPINION OF ANYONE ELSE'S HEALTHCARE MATTERS? IT DOESN'T.

It's not your vagina, it's NOT YOUR BUSINESS.




farglebargle -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 3:42:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

In cases where a normal pelvic exam turns up potential issues, they order additional diagnostics. Easy Peasy.



So. . . a "normal pelvic exam" is NOT rape, but a vaginal transducer is.

What color is the sky on your world?

Do you even know what a pelvic exam entails?


INFORMED CONSENT. Which, for a procedure without any medical benefit, is impossible to give.



GrandPoobah -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 3:43:43 PM)

I have no problem with a DOCTOR deciding that additional tests/procedures would be appropriate...for MEDICAL REASONS. I have a real problem with politicians deciding that medical procedures should be done for purely political (religious) reasons. Therein is the difference.



Daddysredhead -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 3:47:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Yes. I think that they should be getting sonograms before an abortion. For a multitude of reasons.


Well, since you're not a doctor, your opinion and reasons matter a whole lot, and don't matter AT ALL when you're discussing anyone but yourself.

Thank you for playing. Try again soon.

quote:



quote:

The law folks are complaining about says "Doctors, we don't care about your professional opinion of what is needed, if a woman wants an abortion shove a probe up her vagina and do an INTERNAL sonogram."


Then they are fucking stupid. Something internal NEEDS to be done to make sure a woman is pregnant. The old fashioned way is with a speculum to check the color of the cervix. Now we can use a sono.


Of course the determination of that is not left up to you, but rather THE PATIENT AND THEIR DOCTOR.

WHY DO YOU KEEP THINKING THAT YOUR OPINION OF ANYONE ELSE'S HEALTHCARE DOESN'T.

It's not your vagina, it's NOT YOUR BUSINESS.




THIS.



Daddysredhead -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 3:49:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

I have no problem with a DOCTOR deciding that additional tests/procedures would be appropriate...for MEDICAL REASONS. I have a real problem with politicians deciding that medical procedures should be done for purely political (religious) reasons. Therein is the difference.




Daddysredhead -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 3:51:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah

I have no problem with a DOCTOR deciding that additional tests/procedures would be appropriate...for MEDICAL REASONS. I have a real problem with politicians deciding that medical procedures should be done for purely political (religious) reasons. Therein is the difference.


And THIS. *stupid phone & its double posting* grrr...



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 4:36:53 PM)

There is no situation I can think of where a normal pelvic exam is required as a precondition to anything. Here, a vaginal sonogram is required as a precondition to a legal medical procedure. It is coercive, and that is the problem.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Nothing says small government like a vaginal probe! (2/19/2012 4:47:18 PM)

There is another provision of the bill that requires that if a woman does not avail herself of the opportunity to view the ultrasound, then that is noted in her medical records. How does that protect women with an abnormal uterus, Aylee?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875