Help
Featured
This is where people make absolutely no sense to me. Of course, it's a Democrat trying to push back on the Pro-Lifers. This is scraping the bucket.
Pro-lifers want an ultrasound before an abortion. Makes sense. Not all may agree but it makes sense.
Pro-choicer's argument? Well then, men with erectile dysfunction should get a rectal exam.
Who turned over the rock??? And please put it back!!! Things like this make my head hurt.
Basically, Sen Janet Howell (Democrat from Fairfax) feels if a pregnant woman should have an ultrasound before an abortion, men should undergo added medical consults before getting a prescription for any erectile dysfunction drug. Her justification? An ultrasound prior to an abortion is unnecessary and invasive. Gender equality.
What are the additional medical tests for the man with Erectile Dysfunction who wants a Viagra prescription? A digital rectal exam and a cardiac stress test. Seriously. She is proposing an ammendment on this.
This is going up against Sen. Jill Vogel (Republican Fauquier) who is heading the ultrasound bill. Sen Vogel's proposal would require all women who are choosing to have an abortion to have an ultrasonic image taken of the fetus to determine gestational age. The woman is then offered the opportunity to see the image or hear the fetal heartbeat but this is not a requirement.
There are many considerations already taken into men being prescribed erectile dysfunction pills. Before Sen. Howell spoke, she should realize that a prudent doctor will review for cardiac risk factors, other causes for erectile dysfunction, etc prior to jumping to an ED drug. Her argument has to be a joke.
Pregnancy on the other hand....
Personally, I think it's safer physically for the woman choosing to have the abortion to find out how far along she is through an ultrasound. Women who suddenly find themselves pregnant are not the same women who are planning to be pregnant. The "oops" women usually don't realize how far along they are when they think they may be pregnant.
While I am not for abortion, the safe thing to do (and accurate) would be an ultrasound to figure out gestational age and if it's a multiples pregnancy. Giving the woman the chance to hear the heartbeat or see a picture can save a life. If a woman is on the fence on having an abortion, something that simple may just change her mind.
Abortion and Viagra are not two in the same. Pregnancy is not aquired by a pill and rectal exam. Erectile dysfunction could be caused by a number of ailments or medications but a Viagra does not equal a baby. And, if she thinks that the ultrasound is as insulting as a rectal exam, then she has never seen an abortion and what that procedure entails. I think the abortion trumps all. Not to mention the loss of life. I'm sure, if she has children, the first time she saw their heartbeats on an ultrasound she fell in love with her children like most women do.
Maybe, instead of her asinine solution to gender equality in this, she should have proposed the men who fathered these children be required to go to the abortion clinic and be given the same elective of visualizing or hearing the child he helped create? Oh, what am I thinking---the pro-choicer's will scream,"IT'S MY BODY AND MY CHOICE! KEEP THE MEN / GOVERNMENT / MARS / (fill in any blank) OUT OF MY UTERUS!"
Well then, "Ladies," you should have keep those men out of your vagina. Used the free govenment funding for birth control through Planned Parenthood and Mars---well--I have no comparison.
Link is AP
http://washington.cb...-abortion-bill/
Pro-lifers want an ultrasound before an abortion. Makes sense. Not all may agree but it makes sense.
Pro-choicer's argument? Well then, men with erectile dysfunction should get a rectal exam.
Who turned over the rock??? And please put it back!!! Things like this make my head hurt.
Basically, Sen Janet Howell (Democrat from Fairfax) feels if a pregnant woman should have an ultrasound before an abortion, men should undergo added medical consults before getting a prescription for any erectile dysfunction drug. Her justification? An ultrasound prior to an abortion is unnecessary and invasive. Gender equality.
What are the additional medical tests for the man with Erectile Dysfunction who wants a Viagra prescription? A digital rectal exam and a cardiac stress test. Seriously. She is proposing an ammendment on this.
This is going up against Sen. Jill Vogel (Republican Fauquier) who is heading the ultrasound bill. Sen Vogel's proposal would require all women who are choosing to have an abortion to have an ultrasonic image taken of the fetus to determine gestational age. The woman is then offered the opportunity to see the image or hear the fetal heartbeat but this is not a requirement.
There are many considerations already taken into men being prescribed erectile dysfunction pills. Before Sen. Howell spoke, she should realize that a prudent doctor will review for cardiac risk factors, other causes for erectile dysfunction, etc prior to jumping to an ED drug. Her argument has to be a joke.
Pregnancy on the other hand....
Personally, I think it's safer physically for the woman choosing to have the abortion to find out how far along she is through an ultrasound. Women who suddenly find themselves pregnant are not the same women who are planning to be pregnant. The "oops" women usually don't realize how far along they are when they think they may be pregnant.
While I am not for abortion, the safe thing to do (and accurate) would be an ultrasound to figure out gestational age and if it's a multiples pregnancy. Giving the woman the chance to hear the heartbeat or see a picture can save a life. If a woman is on the fence on having an abortion, something that simple may just change her mind.
Abortion and Viagra are not two in the same. Pregnancy is not aquired by a pill and rectal exam. Erectile dysfunction could be caused by a number of ailments or medications but a Viagra does not equal a baby. And, if she thinks that the ultrasound is as insulting as a rectal exam, then she has never seen an abortion and what that procedure entails. I think the abortion trumps all. Not to mention the loss of life. I'm sure, if she has children, the first time she saw their heartbeats on an ultrasound she fell in love with her children like most women do.
Maybe, instead of her asinine solution to gender equality in this, she should have proposed the men who fathered these children be required to go to the abortion clinic and be given the same elective of visualizing or hearing the child he helped create? Oh, what am I thinking---the pro-choicer's will scream,"IT'S MY BODY AND MY CHOICE! KEEP THE MEN / GOVERNMENT / MARS / (fill in any blank) OUT OF MY UTERUS!"
Well then, "Ladies," you should have keep those men out of your vagina. Used the free govenment funding for birth control through Planned Parenthood and Mars---well--I have no comparison.
Link is AP
http://washington.cb...-abortion-bill/
Share This Entry:
9 Comments On This Entry
Page 1 of 1
Be Yourself. Everyone is already taken.
I know when the Spirit of God is there, animals are the first ones to mellow out."If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers, 1897-1935"The poor dog, in life the firmest friend,The first to welcome, foremost to defend,Whose honest heart is still the master's own,Who labours, fights, lives, breathes for him alone,Unhonour'd falls, unnoticed all his worth,Denied in heaven the soul he held on earth,While man, vain insect hopes to be forgiven,And claims himself a sole exclusive heaven."Lord Byron Inscription on the monument of his Newfoundland dog, 1808" He is your friend, your partner,your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He willbe yours, faithful and true, to the last beatof his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy ofsuch devotion." Unknown The Nauseatingly Cute Section
Links
Help Support Rightnation.US!Click HERE!Visit our store!Click HERE to shop!
0 user(s) viewing
0 Guests
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)
0 member(s)
0 anonymous member(s)
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays
My Blog Links
Recent Entries
-
-
-
How about a Rectal Exam with that Viagra? It's the same as an abortion anyway!
on Jan 31 2012 11:22 PM
-
Rabbit Hole, Phoenix, Vampires, Alcoholics Annonymous, Forrest Gump, and Monty Python
on Dec 18 2010 08:22 PM
-
If they can pass all that, THEN they can run for their party's nomination.
This bill would also have the effect of changing the nature of politics in general. Instead of "gotcha" ads and personal attacks during debates, the candidates, already properly vetted to weed out the extremists and the unpatriotic, will be free to concentrate on the country's business instead.
Now a man may not want a rectal exam, but it may be medically necessary in some cases, this viagra discussion aside. Whereas, an ultrasound is not medically necessary. So it is invasive and wasteful (is the gov't paying for the ultrasound or is this expense also forced on the woman?)
Folks, women don't give birth to a bunch of cells. They give birth to babies and what you are destroying with an abortion is a baby, plain and simple.
So, 4LetterState, you would say an abortion is less invasive than a transvaginal ultrasound?
Do you agree that people who have abortions are usually pretty aware of how far along they are? You don't think that some women who are desperate to have an abortion may lie and say they are under 3 months so they don't have to go through all the red tape a woman who is further along has to go through? I realize there are blood tests to check hormone levels but that can be off if there are multiples in the pregnancy.
Let's say that the average woman who does choose to have an abortion is really further along than she thinks she is. Do you honestly feel a first trimester abortion is the appropriate "procedure" for a second trimester pregnancy? (Again, I am not for abortion.) Where I am going with this...would you agree, if you are for abortion and you are for Healthcare reform and appropriate medical practice that having an ultrasound (external or internal) would be more prudent to do than just diving through the cervix and sucking out the fetus when it should have be torn up into little bits? See, if it's a second trimester and they try to vacuum out the baby (call it a clump of cells--whatever) then there are going to be some left overs and the woman who was pregnant is now going to be very sick with a uterine infection because some baby parts or placenta are left behind. If you know it should be torn out limb by limb and "extracted" that way, all you pro-choicers have a better and safer abortion for your women's bodies. You following me? If you have to have a transvaginal ultrasound prior to an ovarian cyst removal then by all means, why aren't you all for safety when it comes to one when you're having a "mass" removed from your uterus???
As far as what you can see in a TVS---I could see my eggs developing on my ovaries. There are ways to check to see if there is something / someone, excuse me, growing in a uterus.
How to last longer during sex
A couple of questions; please try to set aside Howell’s comments for a moment:
Dublin5, you suggested that it’s safer for a pregnant woman to undergo these ultrasound procedures when considering an abortion. You also acknowledge that it’s safer for a man to undergo additional procedures before considering a prescription for Viagra. You’re apparently okay with the former being mandated by the government but not the latter. If I’m reading this accurately then I’m not sure I understand why you (or anyone) would feel that way.
You say that a “prudent doctor” will know when to recommend the additional procedures for men with ED. Wouldn’t a “prudent doctor” also know when to recommend the additional procedures for a pregnant woman? Aren’t there “many considerations” in both cases? Are women’s health specialists somehow less prudent than men’s health specialists? So much so that we need the government to step in? If we leave one situation up to professional prudence then why not the other?
Clearly the procedures are not the same (except perhaps for their intrusiveness) but from a pro-life and procreation perspective, wouldn’t we want more men to take Viagra (if they need it)?
Yes, I’m playing devil’s advocate (to a certain extent) because the conservative side of my political beliefs includes smaller, less intrusive government, and more personal freedom (and responsibility). For both examples, the necessity of the procedures is context-specific and is (should be?) a call best made by medical professionals in consultation with their patients. I think we don’t want or need the heavy hand of the government pushing us into medical procedures that are not otherwise indicated. (There’s already a huge problem with the government spooning with Big Pharma.) Can it be that you’re okay with this unnecessary law because you favor the presumed outcome?