Law Requires Ultrasound Before Abortion

Aleser said:
I am merely demonstrating my frustration with people who know -very little about sex- aside from where to stick it, trying to impose their moral code surrounding sex on other people.

Call it something of a sport.
Click to expand...

Tsk. Your grammatical structure is pitiful. :lol:
 
Aleser said:
I am merely demonstrating my frustration with people who know -very little about sex- aside from where to stick it, trying to impose their moral code surrounding sex on other people.

Call it something of a sport.
Click to expand...

You do realize that neither of the people you've most recently criticized for being not entirely accurate are trying to impose their moral codes on anyone? Both, to the best of my knowledge, are in favor of keeping abortions legal.

As long as you do, then carry on if you're enjoying yourself, I suppose, lol.
 
Beowulf said:
Sure you can. If your partner has full-blown AIDS, you can catch it.
Click to expand...

Beowulf said:
What wrong word did I use? I only said "full-blown AIDS." And as for "catching" it, everyone who engages in sex knows the meaning, Nazi or not. I will defer to others since I am pure as the driven snow. :P
Click to expand...

You can contract HIV from anyone who has HIV. It does not matter if they contracted HIV 2 months ago and have a viral load of three and most decidedly do not have AIDS, or if they've been living with AIDS for a decade.

You cannot contract AIDS no matter who you have sex with or what activity you engage in.
 
Aleser said:
You can contract HIV from anyone who has HIV. It does not matter if they contracted HIV 2 months ago and have a viral load of three and most decidedly do not have AIDS, or if they've been living with AIDS for a decade.

You cannot contract AIDS no matter who you have sex with or what activity you engage in.
Click to expand...

Shows how much you know. There isn't a single person alive today who lived with AIDS for a decade.
 
Aleser said:
Er, you're kind of off the mark there. When reported as "correctly" used, condoms will result in about 1 in 100 women becoming pregnant in the first year of use, not 1 in 100 sex acts resulting in pregnancy. Still, this rate is MUCH higher than the rate of HIV infection, because it is much easier to get pregnant than it is to get HIV.

Condoms fail due to manufacturing defect much more rarely, and if people genuinely maintained perfect use, the true failure rate would be something like 1 in 1000 condoms- so if that happens to you in a year depends on how much sex you have, and how unlucky you are.

On the HIV side of thing, lets assume, conservatively, that 1% of condoms break (reality is more like 0.1% in perfect use) and 1 in 500 unprotected sex acts result in HIV (depending on the sex act, it is 1 in 500 to 1 in 2000ish). If we start with a pool of 100,000 people having sex with HIV infected people, 1000 will experience a condom failure per sex act, and of those, 2 might become infected with HIV. So, even in the worst conditions, only 0.002% of sex acts with an HIV infected people using a condom result in HIV.

Now, lets look at a better-case scenario. Lets assume that condom failure rates are in-between at 0.5%, and that HIV infection per unprotected act remains 1 in 500, and that the person has access to post-exposure prophylaxis which reduces the risk of HIV infection by at least 80% when used correctly. We start with 100,000 HIV-negative people having sex (vaginal or anal, the highest risk activities) with an HIV positive partner. Of those, we assume that 500 will experience a condom failure. Of those, only 1 is likely to contract HIV without PEP. With PEP, 0.2 people are expected to become infected with HIV- or roughly 1 person per 500,000 condom-using sex acts with an HIV+ partner, or 0.0001% of protected sex acts result in HIV.

Going off of 112 average acts per year, depending on how perfectly we believe condoms work, roughly 1 in 112 to 1 in 1120 protected vaginal sex acts will result in a pregnancy, or 0.8-0.08% of protected vaginal sex acts.

If you marry someone with HIV and spend 20 years having consistently protected sex (112 times a year) with them, your risk of contracting HIV is only 0.002%. If you marry someone of the opposite sex and spend 20 years having consistently protected with condoms sex with them (112 times a year, during your fertile years, obviously), the risk that you'll become unintentionally pregnant is potentially as high as 17.92%.

(/dorking it out)

I've given the "this is why we wrap it up, kids!" lecture to GLBTQ youth so many times... And the "this is why we use a backup form of birth control, kids" lecture to het/bi/queer trans/etc youth so many times...
Click to expand...

you actually got the numbers right lol...
 
Aleser said:
Since when does a discussion vaguely related to abortion -not- derail? :lol: Just how things are.
Click to expand...

The thread was regarding ultrasounds before abortion, not how or whether AIDS or HIV is transferred.
 
KristinaB said:
The thread was regarding ultrasounds before abortion, not how or whether AIDS or HIV is transferred.
Click to expand...

... way to repeat what we know? Yes, it was, and it derailed- like 99% of abortion threads on the internet. Abortion is a highly charged topic that brings up everything from race, class, disability, sexual rights, etc when its discussed.
 
KristinaB said:
You can if there were open sores at the time. It is transferable by blood. Therefore, if each partner had some kind of open wound, even as small as a small scratch, AIDS could be transferable. Not will, but could.
Click to expand...

One gets HIV virus from an AIDS-infected person, not AIDS.
 
KristinaB said:
The thread was regarding ultrasounds before abortion, not how or whether AIDS or HIV is transferred.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was about how we're forcing women to look at ultrasounds when they don't want to see them and some self righteous people think that they deserve the punishment, just like they do with STD's because they morally don't approve sex.
 
netrox said:
Actually, it was about how we're forcing women to look at ultrasounds when they don't want to see them and some self righteous people think that they deserve the punishment, just like they do with STD's because they morally don't approve sex.
Click to expand...

Okay - I was going by the title of the thread. Sorry if I got the actual wording wrong. I am outta here.
 
To refresh our memories:

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Starting this Friday, women in Florida will be required to have an ultrasound done by a doctor before having an abortion, a bill Gov. Rick Scott signed into law last Friday.

It's a law the CEO of First Coast Women's Services, Judy Weber, thinks will make a positive difference.

According to Weber, 85 percent of women who have an ultrasound before an abortion change their mind.

Stacy Fox, the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northeast Florida, fought against the law, mostly because it requires the woman having the abortion to pay for the ultrasound.

"Legislators shouldn't be practicing medicine," Fox said. "Unfortunately, this puts a huge burden on women and will increase the cost of a legal procedure in Florida."

Most abortions already include an ultrasound, but Weber said many of the women she helps aren't allowed to see it.

Oklahoma is the only other state that requires ultrasounds before abortions.

Fox said she'll fight to repeal Florida's law.

"This is just really politicians interfering with a doctor-patient relationship and making a requirement that doesn't need to be made," she said.

There is an exception to the law for women who are victims of rape, domestic violence or human sex trafficking. They are not required to have an ultrasound when having an abortion.

Law Requires Ultrasound Before Abortion - Jacksonville News Story - WJXT Jacksonville
 
Back
Top