Comments on: The crusade to humiliate women takes a sinister turn

By: Humilitating women | Hrmotion

Humilitating women | Hrmotion — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 02:57:29 +0000

[...] The crusade to humiliate women takes a sinister turn | The …Dec 27, 2011 … Decision may open door to financial compensation for women subjected to … Samira Ibrahim, who says she was humiliated and tortured by the … [...]

By: libertarian woman

libertarian woman — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 23:52:10 +0000

No, not joking, just trying to think beyond the Planned Parenthood talking points.

To be clear about my motives, I am pro-choice. If a woman is not sovereign over her own body, she enjoys no meaningful freedom. Also, as a libertarian, I don’t support this kind of busybody regulation.

My objection is to the use of violent and histrionic language that implies women are inherently victims: “crusade to humiliate women,” “violate,” “rape,” and “sexual assault.”

Let me reiterate: an ultrasound is routinely performed prior to an abortion to determine the gestational age of the fetus.

This standard medical practice was not compared to assault until the VA legislature required that the woman be given an opportunity to view the same ultrasound image her doctor does. Isn’t this a form of disclosure?

What if this bill is an attempt to use persuasion rather than coercion in pursuit of pro-life aims? That would be a positive development for a seemingly intractable culture war, right?

By: Sacke

Sacke — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 16:03:03 +0000

Are you joking?

The difference between the abortion and the transvaginal ultrasound is the difference between consenting sex and rape.

And if you say something in the lines of “Well if you agree to an abortion is it really that bad to get forced to do a transvaginal ultrasound”, then that’s no different from saying “If you agree to have sex with a guy and he then rapes you on another occasion it’s really not that big of a deal”

By: libertarian woman

libertarian woman — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:03:57 +0000

While your basic point has some merit, the use of the word rape strikes me as over-the-top. The abortion itself would score 10-points for “invasiveness;” a transvaginal ultrasound might rate a 4. To me, the interesting question raised here is whether the woman should be coerced/allowed(?) to see the ultrasound image. Ultrasound is already a standard part of the pre-abortion exam but the images are not usually shared with the woman.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:57:33 +0000

Brian,

While I do not like that law (government cannot legislate a society back to morality), I’ve read the Virgina law and no where did it say what type of ultrasound is necessary. While transvaginal ultrasounds in early pregnancies show more detail, there is no mandate, near as I can read, to have one. The way the law is written, any type of ultrasound will do.

I do find it interesting how a narrative finds its way onto a libertarian website. As a libertarian, to me the better discussion is the link between government funding and government regulations on the areas funded. That’s the big picture and can be discussed in detail across all the social places government has no business in, such as education, personal health, safety, etc..