frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





SCOTUS upholds KY ruling FORCING ultrasounds on abortion patients.

Debate Information




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    This is rape.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaSkepticalOne
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaRedeemed

    Although I do agree that it's unnecessary and abusive, it cannot be "rape" by definition... Don't you think there are enough hyperbole flying around? Saying something is "rape" when it's obviously not, is almost insulting to those who were actually raped... It's not something to throw around lightly... 
    YeshuaBoughtSkepticalOne
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaRedeemed

    Although I do agree that it's unnecessary and abusive, it cannot be "rape" by definition... Don't you think there are enough hyperbole flying around? Saying something is "rape" when it's obviously not, is almost insulting to those who were actually raped... It's not something to throw around lightly... 
    Unwanted penetration of the vagina or anus is rape. You are speaking from privilege. I was raped twice, so I know what I'm talking about. I will not change my mind.
    CYDdharta
  • YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 669 Pts   -  
    CYDdhartaMichaelElpersSkepticalOne
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaRedeemed

    A prenatal ultrasound test uses high-frequency sound waves, inaudible to the human ear, that are transmitted through the abdomen via a device called a transducer to look at the inside of the abdomen.



    There is no penetration whatsoever, none... Words have meaning, use them accordingly please...
    SkepticalOneall4acttZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @YeshuaRedeemed. Lol You feel confortable claiming rape against something you are so uninformed on the topic you didnt even know how an ultrasound is performed.
    SkepticalOne
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @YeshuaRedeemed ; God Bless Kentucky and God Bless President Trump. My letter to @POTUS - President Trump: A warning - a prophecy - a plea: http://https//rickeyholtsclaw.com/2017/09/08/president-trump-a-warning-a-prophecy-a-plea/



    Blastcat
  • @YeshuaRedeemed

    Although I do agree that it's unnecessary and abusive, it cannot be "rape" by definition... Don't you think there are enough hyperbole flying around? Saying something is "rape" when it's obviously not, is almost insulting to those who were actually raped... It's not something to throw around lightly... 
    Actually, I think the OP has a point. To hear a "heartbeat" early in the pregnancy requires a transvaginal ultrasound, and most abortions occur early in the pregnancy.
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • @YeshuaRedeemed. Lol You feel confortable claiming rape against something you are so uninformed on the topic you didnt even know how an ultrasound is performed.
    I think you are misinformed. Most abortions occur early in a pregnancy, and, that being the case, a transvaginal ultrasound is necessary for 'hearing the fetal heartbeat'. Not only is this law cruel, but it is state mandated violation of a woman's body.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • RickeyD said:


    There is no 'right to use or share the body of another'. There is however a moral and legal right to control one's own body, so ...yes, I fight for civil rights and equality and you are arguing for the unborn to have *special rights* which deny rights women (and everyone) already have.
    Plaffelvohfensmoothie
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    I stand corrected, it is more intrusive than I thought and I had to redo my homework, which I just did! ;)  But still, there are more basic objections to those laws...

    Let’s consider the minutiae of these laws and the significant problems they pose. To start, the policy requires that a physician perform the ultrasound at least one day in advance of the procedure and that this physician is the same physician who performs the abortion. There are several problems with this requirement. One, this type of mandate is contrary to the way health care is generally provided. The truth is that ultrasounds are routinely performed by competent non-physician staff in the abortion setting. There is no evidence that this way of providing care is unsafe or unsatisfactory.

    Two, these mandates increase the costs of abortion. Requiring the physician to be present in the clinic on two consecutive days drives up the cost of abortion for the women seeking them and can easily be seen as unjustified restrictions to accessible abortion procedures. 

    In all other aspects of health care, the trend is to use less expensive personnel to perform some patient procedures to both drive down health care costs and save higher-skilled personnel for more complicated activities. The reverse trend in abortion care is deliberate and is meant to make women opt out of abortion, not because of some information the ultrasound gives them, but because abortion is no longer affordable. It is disappointing that state medical associations that vigorously fight efforts by state legislators to tell them how practice medicine have been virtually silent on these ultrasound requirements.

    There is also the inability of women to opt out of aspects of ultrasound viewing; patients have to view and listen to a description of their ultrasound image. This is an intrusion into patient’s rights to control the course of her health care.  It is not about whether women can refuse a probe (which may be medically necessary) but whether they can refuse to watch and listen, those mandates serves absolutely no medical purpose.

    There are unintended consequences of this political approach of focusing on the "vaginal intrusion" of ultra-sound probing... In the experience in Virginia a few years ago (2012-13). After a very high profile “medical rape” fight over mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound, the law was modified to remove the vaginal ultrasound requirement. An abdominal ultrasound is now acceptable.  All other aspects of the law were implemented. Despite a “political win” in Virginia, women receiving abortions are no better off. Instead, the real harms of the law—increased costs, loss of agency in health care decision-making—are obscured and ignored.

    Mandatory ultrasound laws are wrong because they are provided in a way that seeks to drive up costs, because they make it harder to provide abortion care, and most importantly, because they do not improve health outcomes. They eliminate patient autonomy in how health care information is delivered and received. This is a truly egregious harm about which everyone, no matter their position on legal abortion, should be concerned. Trans-vaginal ultrasounds are not medical rape. They are often the preferred course of care. But in those circumstances where it is not medically necessary, ultrasounds should be provided using the clinician’s best judgment, just like any other health care interventions.
    SkepticalOne
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    Well stated and informative. However, I am still very sympathetic to OP's argument. Given that during early pregnancy nothing can detect a "fetal heartbeat" other than transvaginal ultrasound, a law requiring a woman to hear it necessarily means some must endure a device being inserted into their body whether they consent or not. In no other circumstance is it acceptable for the government to mandate medically unnecessary probing into a person's body, and this is no exception. 

    Overall, I think we agree this is a bad law, but my view is that an attack on a person's most basic and intimate property is a much greater issue as to lose this has implications for all other human rights. This is a fundamental violation of bodily autonomy and human rights in general.
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    I do agree that it's a baseless attack on women's physical integrity but as I mentioned, Virginia did stroke down this transvaginal ultrasound requirement, regular ultrasound are now acceptable but the fundamental problems I mentioned remain unaddressed...  <span>:neutral:</span>
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @SkepticalOne

    I do agree that it's a baseless attack on women's physical integrity but as I mentioned, Virginia did stroke down this transvaginal ultrasound requirement, regular ultrasound are now acceptable but the fundamental problems I mentioned remain unaddressed...  <span>:neutral:</span>
    To be honest, I'm not sure that a Scotus ruling on Virginia legislation is necessarily applicable to Kentucky - especially when it seems the goal of anti-abortion legislation is meant to challenge and/or chip away at RVW.

    That being said, if we take the possibility of transvaginal ultrasounds out of the equation, then I agree with your argumentation.
    Plaffelvohfen
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    They went further in Russia. There, if you want to get an abortion, you first have to have a chat with a government-appointed psychologist, a multiple-hour group presentation showing the alleged horrors of the procedure, and then - and this is the best part! - a long conversation with a Christian priest, explaining the consequences of sinning in such a way.

    I personally always thought that it is actually amazing. If I were a woman wanting to go through abortion, I would enjoy messing with these people! I would use the heartbeat sound as a base for the drum beat and play something amazing with my knuckles. Few things are more funny than the look on the face of a conservative doctor faced with the most carefree attitude from the alleged "murderer"!
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar. While i agree talking  with a priest is dumb, not sure that the psychologist is (2hrs is too long) but i dont find it dumb to be more informed on a decision and how it make effect you.

    Your carefree and laughing attitude or killing something with a human heartbeat also seems slightly psycopathic...maybe it was more to throw it back in the face of the government...but still.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    As long as this being informed is initiated by the patient freely, then sure. It is when it becomes forced that I start having fun with it and messing with those who are forced to enforce it.

    I do not see anything problematic with killing something with a human heartbeat that does not have some form of intelligence yet. It is functionally the same as, say, forcibly stopping a neural network-based chat bot running on your computer: sure, it exhibits some behaviors similar to an intelligent being, but it is still merely a program. A fetus is also just a program running on an organic computer, that is not even aware that it exists.

    Regardless, I always make it a point to laugh in the face of questionable rules and regulations. I will obey them to avoid punishment, but I will have as much fun as I can in the process! I am the guy who will put some embarrassing pink female panties in the bag at the airport, just so, when my bag is opened and checked for security purposes, I can enjoy the officer's reaction.
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar. Many argue that newborns arent self aware either.

    The pink panties thing is hilarious...kudos.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    God Bless President Trump.  If a mother is going to murder her child, she should at least see the child first.


    Blastcat
  • all4acttall4actt 305 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    Actually according to what I just read the heart beat can be seen on an pre-natal ultra sound at 5 1/2  weeks.  Doing the vaginal pole is only necessary if you want to hear the heartbeat that early.

    I know years ago in Arizona my sons girlfriend was going to have an abortion and the planned parenthood required her to have an ultrasound before she could have an abortion.  After seeing it she changed her mind. Not my point though. My point is that I don't think KY is this first to require one.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne


    There is also the inability of women to opt out of aspects of ultrasound viewing; patients have to view and listen to a description of their ultrasound image. This is an intrusion into patient’s rights to control the course of her health care.  It is not about whether women can refuse a probe (which may be medically necessary) but whether they can refuse to watch and listen, those mandates serves absolutely no medical purpose.

    This is incorrect.
    The bill would not prohibit the pregnant patient from refusing to view the ultrasound images or listen to the heartbeat, if audible.
    https://rewire.news/legislative-tracker/law/kentucky-ultrasound-informed-consent-act-hb-2/

    Blastcat
  • SpotSpot 22 Pts   -  
  • SpotSpot 22 Pts   -  
  • all4actt said:
    @SkepticalOne

    Actually according to what I just read the heart beat can be seen on an pre-natal ultra sound at 5 1/2  weeks.  Doing the vaginal pole is only necessary if you want to hear the heartbeat that early.

    I know years ago in Arizona my sons girlfriend was going to have an abortion and the planned parenthood required her to have an ultrasound before she could have an abortion.  After seeing it she changed her mind. Not my point though. My point is that I don't think KY is this first to require one.
    I am willing to accept the information you have provided regarding pre-natal ultrasound, in which case it may be a stretch to call the procedure "rape". However, I do disagree with the government mandating medically unnecessary treatments which fail to take into account personal autonomy.

    I doubt Planned parenthood required an ultrasound before abortion. More than likely, this was government mandated hoop-jumping PP themselves was forced to adhere to.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • CYDdharta said:
    @SkepticalOne


    There is also the inability of women to opt out of aspects of ultrasound viewing; patients have to view and listen to a description of their ultrasound image. This is an intrusion into patient’s rights to control the course of her health care.  It is not about whether women can refuse a probe (which may be medically necessary) but whether they can refuse to watch and listen, those mandates serves absolutely no medical purpose.

    This is incorrect.
    The bill would not prohibit the pregnant patient from refusing to view the ultrasound images or listen to the heartbeat, if audible.
    https://rewire.news/legislative-tracker/law/kentucky-ultrasound-informed-consent-act-hb-2/

    I accept a patient can refuse to watch or listen. However they cannot refuse the procedure when they should be able to. This is an embarrassingly simple case of individuals using the government to control something they have no legitimate claim to - other people's bodies.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • Spot said:
    I bet it is easier to discount consent and control a woman's body when you don't have to be present while it is occurring. 
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • RickeyD said:
    God Bless President Trump.  If a mother is going to murder her child, she should at least see the child first.


    I wonder if you would also mandate that self-defense should be contingent upon hearing the aggressor's heartbeat before 'murdering' them...or meeting their loved-ones afterward. The reasoning is the same: emotional manipulation.

    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5970 Pts   -  
    Fetuses look extremely uncanny. Seeing one, frankly, would probably only make me want to get rid of it even more than before!

    I have always had strong aversion to human-like creatures that are not quite human: fetuses, apes and IRS employees.
    SkepticalOneBlastcat
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @SkepticalOne. Well if the agressor would give time to do so maybe you have a case, but at that point id just call the cops and have them arrested. 
  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne Gold Premium Member 1628 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @SkepticalOne. Well if the agressor would give time to do so maybe you have a case, but at that point id just call the cops and have them arrested. 
    It's an imperfect analogy, I admit (abortion can involve one person whereas self-defense necessarily involves more than one), but the appeal to emotion (rather than reason) is identical.
    A supreme being is just like a normal being...but with sour cream and black olives.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch