shocking abuse of women by Republicans in Virginia

[The Toad]

Thanks for making me think about my beliefs and try to sort them out, Ocham!  It's rare that I get the impulsion to do so.  I suspect, however, that 'courage' is demonstrated by the people who acknowledge to their lack of conviction in 'religious' matters and face the consequences boldly, not by those (such as myself) who persist in clinging to even a wispy kind of belief despite the evidence in its favour being - to put it mildly - not very strong.  It'll be interesting to see if my 'beliefs' fail me when the time comes for me to depart this world: all my life I've been good at theory and lousy in practice, and I may well discover at that point that my 'faith' isn't the comfort that I now hope it will be...  Be that as it may; I'm all in favour of scepticism.  Didn't somebody once describe it as 'The chastity of the intellect'?  A bit more of it in the Churches wouldn't go amiss, in my opinion.
I'm still not too sure how we got here from the original subject of the thread...

[Nadine]

The original subject is harder and cannot be solved intellectually.

[hatless]

It's a very strange thing the Republicans have done. Not only is a party that is usually against government doing things insisting on the fine detail of how something should be done, but it's cheerfully and intimately abusing girls and women to make a campaigning point. I find it hard to believe that doctors and nurses would agree to follow a law like this.

The American right has become very alarming, and it's drifting into the mainstream. I wish they would wake up.

[OR]

I am afraid that as in all great nations, under the smiley face there has always been an extremely reactionary and bigoted group of people in power. The 1960's isn't that long ago. The fact that the country was founded in many cases by self exiled extremists from Europe - like the puritans, gives them a long history of right wing views to live down. McCarthy's legacy from the witch hunting 1950s is extremely effective at shutting up moderate protests for fear of being outcast as a lefty sympathiser. Look what happened to the Kennedys who tried to take the legal system forward - and at the nature of the accusations, and the neutralising against the current reformist pres.

One could put all the present problems down to the fear spread by the evil of some religions. The truth, however, is more likely to be the fear of taxes, which pervades history from the Pilgrim Fathers onward.

[The Toad]

Quote from Hatless:

Not only is a party that is usually against government doing things insisting on the fine detail of how something should be done, but it's cheerfully and intimately abusing girls and women to make a campaigning point.

To be fair to the republicans involved, I dare say that even if they admitted to the 'intimately abusing girls and women' aspect of what they are advocating, they would claim to be doing so in order to save the lives of unborn children, not in order to make a campaigning point.  I don't particularly like human beings, but even I would have to admit that it's fairly rare for them to act entirely from base motives.
Quote from Nadine:

The original subject is harder and cannot be solved intellectually.

The original subject is indeed harder, but I don't quite understand what you mean when you say that it cannot be solved intellectually.  How, then, can it be solved?  Should it be addressed at all?  Are you saying that the subject shouldn't be thought about, or discussed?  That what a woman does to her unborn child is her business and nobody else's - not even its own, or its father's?

[hatless]

What I meant by a campaigning point, is that the ultrasound scans they insist on are not needed for medical reasons. If they were, they would be done without government having to interfere. They want the scans done for other reasons, I presume in order to show the girls and women who are being prepared for an abortion that the foetus they are carrying is a human life coming to be born. It's a campaigning point because anti-abortion campaigners often show photographs of aborted foetuses in the belief that they will stir the feelings of those who accept abortion in certain circumstance. Just as it's harder to kill a pig than to buy a packet of sausages or harder to eat a chicken that you have fed for the past few months, so they think, I assume, that people will be less likely to have an abortion if they've seen an ultrasound image of their foetus.

If a young girl has been raped and is pregnant as a result, and is being prepared for an abortion, I think it's not only inappropriate, but abusive to make her undergo a medically useless scan. I can see that in some cases women might change their minds about an abortion having seen a scan. In those cases you could imagine that compulsory scans would save lives. But there are situations where it seems to me to be horribly wrong to try and sway the person. If someone has been seriously traumatised by a rape or is a victim of repeated abuse, say, it isn't a great time to play on their emotions in the hope that they might change their mind. It only adds a second trauma to the first.

It's also, I think, wrong to focus on the woman's choice. Pregnancies and opportunities for raising children are not just down to women. It takes two to start a pregnancy, and society as a whole is involved in the opportunities and difficulties that people have in having or refusing sex, and in what they choose to do and are able to do when they are pregnant.

[OR]

Toad,

To be fair to the republicans involved, I dare say that even if they admitted to the 'intimately abusing girls and women' aspect of what they are advocating, they would claim to be doing so in order to save the lives of unborn children, not in order to make a campaigning point.  I don't particularly like human beings, but even I would have to admit that it's fairly rare for them to act entirely from base motives.

You have a great faith in politician's goodness in human nature which the facts have never justified anywhere in the World.
The worst will do anything they can get away with to control people.
Non consentual internal examination is a form of rape.
All medical examinations are frightening.
In a non free medical system the scan has to be paid for - and they cost hundreds of dollars.

Why? A mixture of extreme belief, hate inspired irrational stereotyping, jealousy of the sexually repressed, male control over fertility, and maybe, considering where we are talking about, pressure from the medical profession to increase fees.

[The Toad]

Quotes from Hatless:

If a young girl has been raped and is pregnant as a result, and is being prepared for an abortion, I think it's not only inappropriate, but abusive to make her undergo a medically useless scan. I can see that in some cases women might change their minds about an abortion having seen a scan. In those cases you could imagine that compulsory scans would save lives. But there are situations where it seems to me to be horribly wrong to try and sway the person. If someone has been seriously traumatised by a rape or is a victim of repeated abuse, say, it isn't a great time to play on their emotions in the hope that they might change their mind. It only adds a second trauma to the first.

Agreed.

anti-abortion campaigners often show photographs of aborted foetuses in the belief that they will stir the feelings of those who accept abortion in certain circumstance. Just as it's harder to kill a pig than to buy a packet of sausages or harder to eat a chicken that you have fed for the past few months, so they think, I assume, that people will be less likely to have an abortion if they've seen an ultrasound image of their foetus.

If you can make that 'so they HOPE', rather than 'so they THINK', I'll agree with that, too.  That said, the question still remains of whether the campaigning point is a valid one or not.
Would it perhaps be better if these scans and photographs were shown to boys and girls who are on the brink of sexual activity, with the message: "If you don't take every precaution when you have sex, and don't check if you're pregnant soon afterwards and get an early abortion if you need one, this is what you'll end up making and destroying."?
Quotes from OR:

You have a great faith in politician's goodness in human nature which the facts have never justified anywhere in the World.   

I have very little faith in politicians, many of whom, I suspect, would sell their principles (if they had any) to gain any sort of advantage for themselves or their party.  That said, I don’t doubt that there are honourable exceptions.  While the worst will, I don’t doubt, do anything they can to control people, the best may very well be motivated by a wish to do what they perceive as right.

The worst will do anything they can get away with to control people.

I don’t think you’re being quite cynical enough, here.  I would be willing to bet that even the best will do anything they can get away with to control people.  Isn’t that the idea behind going into politics: you think you’ve got the answers to the country’s problems, and you want the power to put them into practise?  But you can only exercise that power if you can control people.  Even ‘liberals’ don’t believe in NOT controlling people – they just want to control people to behave in a way that ‘liberals’ think is proper.

Why? A mixture of extreme belief, hate inspired irrational stereotyping, jealousy of the sexually repressed, male control over fertility, and maybe, considering where we are talking about, pressure from the medical profession to increase fees.

You may well be right.  All I would say is that I wouldn’t call the belief that it is deeply regrettable to destroy something which is practically a human baby an ‘extreme’ one.  ‘Jealousy of the sexually repressed ‘ opens up another avenue altogether – aren’t there certain of our sexual drives which ought to be repressed?  I sometimes fear that in the west Sex has become part of our modern Holy Trinity, along with Shopping and Celebrity: ‘If you’re not having sex – or spending money, or getting your picture in the media - you’re not having life’.  So we f**k and we f**k, and we spend and we spend, and we’ll do anything – even make complete fools of ourselves – to get on television; but the drugs don’t work.  We feel empty, and cheated, so we f**k harder, go deeper into debt, haul our non-existent talent on to some talent show and let the audience rip us apart; and the downward spiral of emptiness and pointlessness goes on.

There’s got to be more to life than that, hasn’t there?  But if there is, what is it?  And who is telling the world about it?

[hatless]

Hi Toad, yes, hope might be better than think. I was just saying what I thought the intention behind this measure is.

I think it's good that we've all seen pictures of the developing foetus, and are aware of the process of development in the womb. Scans are interesting up to a point, and most of us have been shown the printouts that people come back with from the clinic. I think we should all be aware of the consequences of our actions, so reminding young people as they become capable of sexual activity is a good thing.

However, this measure loads it all onto women and girls. Shouldn't RC cardinals be reminded of the realities of abortions every time they make one of their anti-contraception pronouncements? Or MPs making policies that will keep the poor poor, limiting the choices available to young people? Or parents opting to exclude their children from sex education?

[OR]

Excellent point, Hatless

[hatless]

Thank you, OR. Is it true that you're the best a man can get?

[The Toad]

Quote from Hatless:

However, this measure loads it all onto women and girls. Shouldn't RC cardinals be reminded of the realities of abortions every time they make one of their anti-contraception pronouncements? Or MPs making policies that will keep the poor poor, limiting the choices available to young people? Or parents opting to exclude their children from sex education?

Sadly, nature has dictated that the consequences of getting pregnant are loaded upon women and girls; so we have to follow her lead.  If the men and boys got pregnant too, it'd be a whole different - ("Excuse him for a few minutes.  He's trying to think of a phrase other than 'Ball game." - Editor) - a whole different scenario.  That said, I'm with you on the other measures - particularly the RC cardinals one.