Abortion

[hazeh]

because once something goes wrong the so called pro-life people can shout to women that need abortions. "ya! have you heard of ____ case? this is a risk that can happen and you know they aren't even using real doctors!". and of course some nurses can't pull it off causing some complications which looks real good on anti abortion case to scare the out of woman seeking abortion. i'm shore that is what they are pushing for. yes some nurses can pull threw on it though its the ones that can't that will better anti abortion campaigns. or this is just my personal thought on them.

 

edit: *women

There are just as many incompetent doctors as there are nurses. I don't see a reason for the numbers to rise on abortion complications just because a nurse is carrying out a procedure rather than a doctor.

 

Anti-abortionists will cry foul at anything that goes wrong, regardless of who preforms it.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Brite]

There are just as many incompetent doctors as there are nurses. I don't see a reason for the numbers to rise on abortion complications just because a nurse is carrying out a procedure rather than a doctor.

 

Anti-abortionists will cry foul at anything that goes wrong, regardless of who preforms it.

Arrgh it's so frustrating when a lot of anti-choicers are straight up hypocrites that are just confusing. For instance, I've met several that blame pregnant teens for not using contraceptives while at the same time, they want all contraceptives banned.

 

It's like "Umm..what?" Setting up for failure

[skauble]

Just want to point out that it's not nurses, per se, that would be doing the procedures. It's nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants. These are people with either more training than registered nurses (nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives) or training with a different focus (physician assistants).

 

According to the bill:

(a) The Access through Primary Care Project, known as Health Workforce Pilot Project (HWPP) No. 171, was approved in 2007 to teach new skills to nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants, and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of allowing nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants to use these new skills to perform first trimester aspiration abortions.

This was sponsored by The Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) program at the University of California, San Francisco. So we're talking about a very credible program as opposed to some iffy training.

 

It also had a good deal of oversight:

Under existing law, the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development approves, establishes minimum guidelines for, and performs onsite visitations for specified types of evaluation of health workforce projects. Existing law also requires the office to collect and make public the data an approved project generates. Existing law prohibits the office from approving a project for beyond a specified period unless a specified determination is made.

(b ) The study investigators from the University of California find, from the data submitted to the office that trainees of the project have achieved competency and safely perform first trimester aspiration abortions using the new skills acquired in HWPP No. 171. The study investigators intend to undergo additional peer review of the data by submitting the results for publication in a nationally recognized, peer-reviewed journal.

So the training part is something that has already been under evaluation and shown to be safe before this was extended, and they're seeking peer-review so that it will be evaluated even more.

 

Frankly, The Blaze is a fairly conservative news source, so they're going to put a negative, scary spin on this. But, and you can read the bill yourself, it did not state, as The Blaze claimed, that "due to a shortage of doctors, now a number of certified nurses, midwives, and physician assistants are also qualified.".

 

This is going to do way more to help women have access to these kind of options than it will do to hurt that cause if there is ever a case where complications arise. Are there some people who would freak out if there ever was such a case? Sure. But those people are probably already firmly pro-life or would be easy to fairly convince by other means, so there's little point in not supporting this program, IMO.

[Lilithiana]

My sister is a nurse and what she told me about what kind of doctors she met in her life is really scary. Some doctors really think they are something like an allknowing god and don't listen to nurses with decades of experience. Not all nurses are great - my sister told me that, too - but being a doctor doesn't make the person automatically a better medical specialist. And everyone makes a mistake once in a while (so you better have someone at hand to re-check).

Anyone with appropiate medical training and experience is good.

 

And about this rapist who wants to see the child: THAT'S JUST GROSS!!! This guy raped practically a child and now wants to get close to another child. How could anyone allow THAT!!!

[Brite]

Off-topic, but I felt this was relevant.

 

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/discovery...-143800721.html

If there was a mom gene, I know for sure I don't have it.

 

Someone did have a point that a lot of people insist that having kids will make your life better but they never realize(or don't want to) that in a lot of cases, it's the opposite.

[Syaoransbear]

Someone did have a point that a lot of people insist that having kids will make your life better but they never realize(or don't want to) that in a lot of cases, it's the opposite.

That's for sure. My SIL, her husband, and her two children(2 and 4) are currently staying with us because their lease ran out on their apartment before their house was finished being built. They fight like crazy and seem constantly miserable. Kids seem like total relationship killers.

[Brite]

Kids seem like total relationship killers.

Because big responsibility comes into play and a lot of parents are truly not ready for it but during the pregnancy stage they either think it's the right thing to keep the child or they're pressured into it. Then it's a ticking time-bomb

[angelicdragonpuppy]

The funny thing is, most of the time when I try to argue against abortion now, it's not even a matter of trying to convince the person that a human is being killed.

 

It's a matter of trying to convince them that it's kinder to let them live than it is to kill them.

 

How nice that our advanced society has taken it upon itself to judge whether or not our fellow humans would be happier alive or dead. How merciful! Surely everyone who has a chance to suffer if they're born should be humanely euthanized before they are born. We needn't let them decide for themselves whether they should live or not.

 

Thus the only logical extension I can see is that, as we know that infants going to orphanages will suffer, and that many children in third-world African countries will suffer, they ought to be euthanized as well. I assure you it can be done humanely. They'll feel as little pain as does an aborted fetus. It will be much more merciful than allowing them to live lives that will surely be hard and full of suffering.

[hydrargyrum]

The funny thing is, most of the time when I try to argue against abortion now, it's not even a matter of trying to convince the person that a human is being killed.

 

It's a matter of trying to convince them that it's kinder to let them live than it is to kill them.

 

How nice that our advanced society has taken it upon itself to judge whether or not our fellow humans would be happier alive or dead. How merciful! Surely everyone who has a chance to suffer if they're born should be humanely euthanized before they are born. We needn't let them decide for themselves whether they should live or not.

 

Thus the only logical extension I can see is that, as we know that infants going to orphanages will suffer, and that many children in third-world African countries will suffer, they ought to be euthanized as well. I assure you it can be done humanely. They'll feel as little pain as does an aborted fetus. It will be much more merciful than allowing them to live lives that will surely be hard and full of suffering.

First of all, there are several people who, on this very chat, have literally said "I wish my mother had been brave enough to abort me" so life is not always preferable to non-existence. True, it's impossible to tell which will happen in the future of an unborn child, but I don't think always erring on the side of life is the right solution. Just like a life once taken cannot be given back, it's also true that a life once given cannot be taken away. (Wishing you were aborted is completely different from wishing yourself dead.) A fetus doesn't want life nor can it fear death, because it cannot understand those concepts. A child can, so comparing abortion to euthanizing children is ridiculous.

 

Second, you act like abortion being better than life is one of the primary reasons people get abortions. I really don't think it is. I believe in choice because I believe that a fully grown, conscious woman has more of a right to health and happiness than a fetus does to life or potential happiness. While I do believe that making the child suffer by being born to a mother who doesn't want it is cruel to the child, it's also cruel to the mother.

[DarkLadyNyara]

because once something goes wrong the so called pro-life people can shout to women that need abortions. "ya! have you heard of ____ case? this is a risk that can happen and you know they aren't even using real doctors!". and of course some nurses can't pull it off causing some complications which looks real good on anti abortion case to scare the out of woman seeking abortion. i'm shore that is what they are pushing for. yes some nurses can pull threw on it though its the ones that can't that will better anti abortion campaigns. or this is just my personal thought on them.

 

edit: *women

Trained nurses and midwives probably aren't that likely to cause complications. And giving the anti-choice movement something else to lie about is a small price to pay for giving many women actual access to abortion. More trained medical professionals providing abortions is only a good thing.

 

Second, you act like abortion being better than life is one of the primary reasons people get abortions. I really don't think it is. I believe in choice because I believe that a fully grown, conscious woman has more of a right to health and happiness than a fetus does to life or potential happiness. While I do believe that making the child suffer by being born to a mother who doesn't want it is cruel to the child, it's also cruel to the mother.

 

QFT.

[skauble]

The funny thing is, most of the time when I try to argue against abortion now, it's not even a matter of trying to convince the person that a human is being killed.

I don't know who you're arguing with, but the question of when life begins, where we place the "personhood" line, and those rights vs. the mother's are incredibly relevant to the ongoing discourse and still constantly being debated.

 

People arguing about the effects of possibly being an "unwanted" child are usually doing so as an aside to the larger argument of how much control is a woman allowed to exert over her body.

[~Kat~]

Here is an interesting article.

 

Teen Pregnancy Statistics.

 

Look how high the USA Teen Pregnancy is compared to other countries.

 

http://www.teenhelp.com/teen-pregnancy/tee...statistics.html

[Rosedamai]

Mr. "legitimate rape" Todd Akin strikes yet again!

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22...DGraham%2BSmith

giving abortions to women who are not actually pregnant

Lol.

Kat that may be because in some countries teen pregnancy statistics get underreported. I know my country does.

 

Edited because the link was dead.

Edited October 3, 2012 by ylangylang

[skauble]

Mr. "legitimate rape" Todd Akin strikes yet again!

 

http://mobile.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20..._research_.html

How dare those fiends...not abort anything?

 

Yeah, I'm at a loss here.

[Fuzzbucket]

Here is an interesting article.

 

Teen Pregnancy Statistics.

 

Look how high the USA Teen Pregnancy is compared to other countries.

 

http://www.teenhelp.com/teen-pregnancy/tee...statistics.html

And while I was working in Public Health on teen pregnancy in the UK - another bad one - there were any number of studies that showed this to be directly related to appallingly bad sex education in schools AND TO PARENTS INSISTING THAT THEIR CHILDREN NOT TAKE SEX ED , not to their behaviour as such.

 

The countries with the lowest rates are the ones with the est sex ed, starting at age 7, and particularly those including relationship education.

[Rosedamai]

Also, to all those people who say to rape victims to just raise the child-

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25...intcmp=trending

 

A Massachusetts man is seeking visitation rights to the child he fathered after raping a 14-year-old girl, setting the stage for a legal battle in the Bay State.

The teen mother was raped by the 20-year-old family friend three years ago and says she still suffers from severe anxiety and depression. She says she is terrified at the prospect of  having any dealings with her tormentor, reports MyFoxBoston.com.

How can you possibly say those vile words to a rape victim? How can you possibly say to the rape victims to just have the baby when there are issues like this? Regardless of the depression and issues that one has when you're pregnant with your rapist's baby, the rapist can come back to visit you later. When everything is so fraught with issues, it's a very brave woman who decides to keep a baby after she's been raped, but not everyone is going to make that choice, and I don't fault them for it.

 

Ugh, radical pro-lifers.

Edited October 3, 2012 by ylangylang

[Kestra15]

Here is an interesting article.

 

Teen Pregnancy Statistics.

 

Look how high the USA Teen Pregnancy is compared to other countries.

 

http://www.teenhelp.com/teen-pregnancy/tee...statistics.html

The only problem with 'teen pregnancy' studies is that it includes 18 and 19 yr olds - so people who have already finished their high-school education and are going out into the working world. My mother and my sister are both 'teenage mothers,' but both have finished their education.

 

And really, only 1.5% of mothers have a college degree? That's not bad to be honest -for one, not everyone needs a degree to work.

[brairtrainer]

http://news.yahoo.com/baby-bust-continues-...-041403038.html

 

Apprently birth rates are falling all over the country, and mothers in there 20s have hit a historic low

[brairtrainer]

 

Just gonna leave this here. Talks about the until abortion ends.

[Brite]

 

Just gonna leave this here. Talks about the until abortion ends.

His words were pretty much my thoughts when I saw the rediculous "Until abortion ends" site. You're giving up sweets or other things. But abortion ending to them only means safe legal ending. Pretty much what he said.

[Vhale]

Thought I'd post this whole article here

Original

 

Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds

By Brian Alexander, NBC News Contributor

 

A dramatic new study with implications for next month’s presidential election finds that offering women free birth control can reduce unplanned pregnancies -- and send the abortion rate spiraling downward.

 

When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.

 

From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among participants in the Contraceptive Choice Project  -- dubbed CHOICE -- ranged from 4.4 abortions per 1,000 women to 7.5 abortions per 1,000. That’s far less than the 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide reported in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.

 

 

Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.

 

The study’s lead author, Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, expected both measures to fall, but even he said he was “very surprised” by the magnitude.

 

In all, Peipert said, one abortion was prevented for approximately every 100 women who took part (the actual estimate is 1 per every 79 to 135 women).

 

The results were so dramatic, in fact, that Peipert pushed the journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology to publish the study before the Nov. 6 presidential election, knowing that the Affordable Care Act, and its reproductive health provisions, are major issues in the campaign.

 

“It just has so many implications for our society,” he told NBC News.

 

Several factors contributed to the declines, he argued. First, a large majority of the women in the study were encouraged -- and chose -- to use intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and hormonal implants over more commonly used birth control pills.

 

Because birth control pills require strict adherence, and people forget to take them, that method fails about 8 percent of the time. IUDs and implants are over 99 percent effective.

 

Second, program enrollees included high-risk populations like women and girls who’ve already used abortion services once -- and are more likely to have a second abortion -- and women and girls who are economically distressed and may not have means to obtain contraceptive products and services.

 

That’s important because an IUD, including the device and the physician’s service to place it in the uterus, can cost between $800 and $1,000. Since an IUD lasts at least five years, it saves money in the long run over a monthly cost of roughly $15-$25 for pills, but the up-front charge is prohibitive for many women.

 

James Trussell, a Princeton University professor of economics and public affairs and an expert in family planning called the results “terrific, great work, and a very important demonstration project.”

 

But it’s also politically fraught. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to cover contraceptive costs. That’s led to conflicts among the Obama administration, the Catholic church, and the church’s political allies who argue that requiring a Catholic employer to provide such insurance contradicts the church’s teaching and represents a breach of religious freedom.

 

Conservatives have also objected to contraceptive coverage on cost grounds. Some have focused their anger at Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who agitated for the Catholic school to offer an insurance plan that covers contraception. Radio host Rush Limbaugh famously called her a “” and a “prostitute.”

Advertise | AdChoices

 

But experts, including Peipert, point out that no-cost contraception saves money.

 

According to a 2011 study from the Guttmacher Institute, unplanned pregnancies costs the United States a conservatively estimated $11 billion per year.

 

“The way I look at it as a gynecologist with an interest in women’s health and public health and family planning, is that this saves money,” Peipert said. “When you provide no-cost contraception, and you remove that barrier, you finally reduce unintended pregnancy rates. It doesn’t matter what side one is on politically, that’s a good thing.”

 

The Catholic Church is unlikely to be moved. “If, as supporters of the contraceptive mandate argue, it will pay for itself in reduced medical expenses, so will free embryo engineering and other eugenic services, including infanticide, doctor-assisted suicide, organ harvesting, and genetic manipulation,” wrote Thomas Joseph White, director of the Thomistic Institute at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., and R.R. Reno, in the conservative journal First Things.

 

But to academic experts, the results of CHOICE are clear. “What the study suggests to me,” said John Santelli, professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, “is that it’s totally supportive of the president’s provisions on reproductive care and preventive services for women in the Affordable Care Act.”

 

In a 2009 study, Trussell and colleagues reported that long-acting contraceptives like IUDs were far cheaper than an unintended birth, an abortion, and especially an ectopic pregnancy.

 

Trussell argued that cost savings go “well beyond” those immediate medical savings. They don’t, for example, take into account costs associated with longer term issues such as economic stress on the mother and family, a teenager who doesn’t finish high school or skips college because she’s had a baby.

 

Research has also shown that neglect, stress, anxiety, or simply a low level of nurturing in early life has effects on a child that can last far into adulthood. It may influence, for example, the cycle of teen pregnancy and crime.

 

“It’s hard to imagine how politicians wouldn’t like to spend a dollar to save four,” Trussell said. As to the objections like those of White, he concluded that “it makes no sense whatsoever. Regardless of your views on abortion, virtually everybody says preventing unintended pregnancies is smart.”

[Rosedamai]

Thought I'd post this whole article here

Original

 

Why am I not surprised by this? It's just common sense...but then again there ARE plenty of people who just want to punish you for having sex..

[Brite]

Why am I not surprised by this? It's just common sense...but then again there ARE plenty of people who just want to punish you for having sex..

Sex police? *screams*

[Kestra15]

Thought I'd post this whole article here

Original

 

I read that and thought:

 

[brairtrainer]

Sex police? *screams*

The day America gets those is the day I buy a one way trip to Norway or Denmark. Stay out of the bed room you don't want to know what goes on in there.