Abortion

[Obscure_Trash]

Does it not occur to them/do they not care that these laws will at some point affect people they know and care about? That it could someday affect them?

Considering some of the stories from The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion consist of women coming in for an abortion and then being right back to protesting the clinic a few days later, I'm not surprised at this lack of forethought. Smacks of privilege to me. =\

[LascielsShadow]

Considering some of the stories from The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion consist of women coming in for an abortion and then being right back to protesting the clinic a few days later, I'm not surprised at this lack of forethought. Smacks of privilege to me. =\

Absolutely. They're not the sort to whom it occurs that other people's situations may be just like theirs. To them, the obvious thing is that they are the only people ever to need an abortion for X reason; all those other women can't possibly be going through X thing as well, they're just stupid girls who want to avoid "responsibility". People like that never do acknowledge their privilege or their hypocrisy.

[vintageandroid]

There's also a heavy element of punishing women for having sex. Birth control in particular, because it allows women to do what they want without the "natural consequences." You'll notice no one's trying to ban vasectomies--men are allowed to have sex for funzies because they HAVE NEEDS OMG; women who do are all harlots or whatever.

[Infinis]

Absolutely. They're not the sort to whom it occurs that other people's situations may be just like theirs. To them, the obvious thing is that they are the only people ever to need an abortion for X reason; all those other women can't possibly be going through X thing as well, they're just stupid girls who want to avoid "responsibility". People like that never do acknowledge their privilege or their hypocrisy.

That would require taking responsibility, which is something the majority of them are unwilling to do. It would also require them to educate themselves thoroughly on the opposite side of the debate, which, again, most seem to be unwilling to do.

 

There's also a heavy element of punishing women for having sex. Birth control in particular, because it allows women to do what they want without the "natural consequences." You'll notice no one's trying to ban vasectomies--men are allowed to have sex for funzies because they HAVE NEEDS OMG; women who do are all harlots or whatever.

 

There's the control element again, too. Take away the BC and it's just another possible way to keep women tied to the home raising children. (It would be terrible for me to be trapped in a domestic setting...I don't have very many domestic bones in me...lol)

 

I feel like a lot of the people against BC are also ill-educated about it, and a case in point is that cardiologist in the article Vhale posted. BC is useful for more than actual birth control - it can be used to help regulate menstruation (and maybe other things but I haven't done a lot of research so this is all I know offhand).

 

There's also a heavy element of sexism in this kind of thing too, in regards to the end of your statement. Because women can't possibly want/appreciate sex 'cause it's fun or feels good. .w.

 

lso, there's this:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/25...enthood-defund/

 

Because having the Hyde Amendment in place to make sure that no federal tax dollars go to funding abortions is just not enough for these guys. They just know that those wily folk at Planned Parenthood are somehow hiding that "over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does"* is abortions.

Apparently, "breast cancer screenings", "pap smears" and "preventative care" are code for "abortion" in their brains.

 

I guess most of them don't realize (or don't want to realize because it doesn't support their agenda) that the funding for the abortions PP DOES provide doesn't come from their federal funding. (And anyway abortion is a very small part of what PP provides - the last statistic I saw was something like 3% of the total of what they do.) It doesn't make a lot of sense for them to be so against PP, given those stats.

 

I don't understand why people would hate on PP - it's an incredibly helpful service from what I understand. >_> *sigh*

 

I recall when people were discussing the ultrasound bills a ways back, that the whole anti-abortion movement wasn't that bad because they'd never outlaw birth control. Well, they are trying, after all.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/22...control-poison/

 

I fail to understand how using BC would "suppress" or "disable" who I am. I decide who I am, and every other individual decides who they are. It is not, and never has been or will be, up to other people to tell me who I am and determine the fundamentals of what makes me me. Just because I have a uterus does not mean potential parenthood is a part of me.

 

And clearly he has not done any kind of research into BC. It's actually not poisonous.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Infinis

[Syaoransbear]

If saying that a woman's identity is to be a mother and that birth control prevents women from being who they are meant to be, does that mean they want to ban condoms as well?

[Fuzzbucket]

If saying that a woman's identity is to be a mother and that birth control prevents women from being who they are meant to be, does that mean they want to ban condoms as well?

I imagine they will weasel out of that on the grounds that Condoms Help Prevent Disease.

 

Which is annoyingly true.

[brairtrainer]

That would require taking responsibility, which is something the majority of them are unwilling to do. It would also require them to educate themselves thoroughly on the opposite side of the debate, which, again, most seem to be unwilling to do.

 

 

 

There's the control element again, too. Take away the BC and it's just another possible way to keep women tied to the home raising children. (It would be terrible for me to be trapped in a domestic setting...I don't have very many domestic bones in me...lol)

 

I feel like a lot of the people against BC are also ill-educated about it, and a case in point is that cardiologist in the article Vhale posted. BC is useful for more than actual birth control - it can be used to help regulate menstruation (and maybe other things but I haven't done a lot of research so this is all I know offhand).

 

There's also a heavy element of sexism in this kind of thing too, in regards to the end of your statement. Because women can't possibly want/appreciate sex 'cause it's fun or feels good. .w.

 

 

 

I guess most of them don't realize (or don't want to realize because it doesn't support their agenda) that the funding for the abortions PP DOES provide doesn't come from their federal funding. (And anyway abortion is a very small part of what PP provides - the last statistic I saw was something like 3% of the total of what they do.) It doesn't make a lot of sense for them to be so against PP, given those stats.

 

I don't understand why people would hate on PP - it's an incredibly helpful service from what I understand. >_> *sigh*

 

 

 

I fail to understand how using BC would "suppress" or "disable" who I am. I decide who I am, and every other individual decides who they are. It is not, and never has been or will be, up to other people to tell me who I am and determine the fundamentals of what makes me me. Just because I have a uterus does not mean potential parenthood is a part of me.

 

And clearly he has not done any kind of research into BC. It's actually not poisonous.

Infinis you're first two points really hit home with me.

 

#1 My mom is heavily pro-life (including with medical abortions) which to me makes no sense because if she were to get pregnant the next pregnancy could very very easily kill her. In fact its one of the main things we argue about, how I'm pro-choice and she isn't. Though she also thinks my view will change once I have kids of my own

 

#2 People are ill educated about BC. I had a friend who took it for heavy moodswings, irregular periods, and full month PMS. Once when she went to get her perscription the head pharmasist refused not only to give it too her, but forbid his colleges as well, saying she needed to take responsibility for her actions. She ended up complaining to the manger and going to the other pharmacy in town, only to find they didn't keep her brand of perscription on hand. She had to wait for them to ship it in (2 days of her like that was not fun, but she refused to try and go back to the original pharmacy).

Edited February 27, 2013 by brairtrainer

[Zaxian]

#2 People are ill educated about BC. I had a friend who took it for heavy moodswings, irregular periods, and full month PMS. Once when she went to get her perscription the head pharmasist refused not only to give it too her, but forbid his colleges as well, saying she needed to take responsibility for her actions. She ended up complaining to the manger and going to the other pharmacy in town, only to find they didn't keep her brand of perscription on hand. She had to wait for them to ship it in (2 days of her like that was not fun, but she refused to try and go back to the original pharmacy).

Egads, people like those [the pharmacist] make me SO ANGRY. For lots of reasons. Not least because taking birth control to prevent pregnancy seems a damn sight more "responsible" than not taking it and just getting pregnant! (But o/c what he really meant was not that she should "take responsibility for her actions", but that she should be punished for daring to have sex not for the purposes of having a baby.)

 

And sorry, edited to add:

People are ill educated about BC.

They are, but it's irrelevant to the anecdote. He should have no power to refuse to prescribe it (or worse yet, prevent someone else from filling the prescription), regardless of whether the woman in question is using it for some medical issue or *for birth control*.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Zaxian

[brairtrainer]

Egads, people like those [the pharmacist] make me SO ANGRY. For lots of reasons. Not least because taking birth control to prevent pregnancy seems a damn sight more "responsible" than not taking it and just getting pregnant! (But o/c what he really meant was not that she should "take responsibility for her actions", but that she should be punished for daring to have sex not for the purposes of having a baby.)

 

And sorry, edited to add:

 

They are, but it's irrelevant to the anecdote. He should have no power to refuse to prescribe it (or worse yet, prevent someone else from filling the prescription), regardless of whether the woman in question is using it for some medical issue or *for birth control*.

Unfortuneatly Zaxion if the pharmasist is against BC (mainly for religious reasons) he can refuse to perscribe it. Her medication was also closely related to another type of BC that is right now been recalled and there are law suits over (its a more powerful medication, used when the normal amount of hormones doesn't work or when there is a testosterone imbalence) meaning they had to clear each amount they gave out with the head pharmasist to avoid mishaps. Unfortuneatly it meant my friend went without her medication.

[Spelunker]

Okay, so if they can deny your friend BC, on the grounds that the pharmacist is against it, then I suppose they should not have to give out ANY medication, because there's no point in stocking it if, at one point, the supervisor becomes against it and decides that HE won't give it out.

 

Or maybe they should stop stocking "manliness" meds, on the grounds that "OMG we need to save all the fetuses, don't contribute to the baby problem".

[Zaxian]

Unfortuneatly Zaxion if the pharmasist is against BC (mainly for religious reasons) he can refuse to perscribe it.

Why? Nobody is forcing *him* to take the pill.

 

As a secondary point, if it's because he's one of those people that believes that "babies have a soul from the moment of conception" so the pill is somehow aborting babies because it reduces the chance of a fertilised egg implanting in the womb, then the "education" problem is indeed relevant, if only because his argument's likely flawed. Unfortunately I can't remember the link, but I was reading an interesting article a while ago (it was possibly posted as a link on this thread) that ran the numbers and came to the conclusion that the pill is actually *saving* more of these "babies" than it's causing.

(The reasoning went along the lines of: there is no guarantee that, once fertilised, an egg will successfully implant in the womb. Woman who have sex, not on birth control, will lead to x number of 'aborted' babies. Woman who are on birth control, as well as having a low chance to implant, release *far* fewer eggs overall - and the numbers work out such that this actually results in fewer 'aborted' egg simply because they never get released to get fertilised at all).

 

But frankly, from his comment that "she should take responsibility for her actions" suggests to me that it's got bugger all to do with actual religious beliefs. (Other than perhaps sexism thinly-veiled as religion).

[Infinis]

To be perfectly honest, I do not feel that personal, religious, and political views belong in medicine. As far as I'm concerned it is not the doctor's or nurse's or pharmacist's place to deny treatment or medication a person needs based on religious, personal, or political views.

 

As a secondary point, if it's because he's one of those people that believes that "babies have a soul from the moment of conception" so the pill is somehow aborting babies because it reduces the chance of a fertilised egg implanting in the womb, then the "education" problem is indeed relevant, if only because his argument's likely flawed. Unfortunately I can't remember the link, but I was reading an interesting article a while ago (it was possibly posted as a link on this thread) that ran the numbers and came to the conclusion that the pill is actually *saving* more of these "babies" than it's causing.

(The reasoning went along the lines of: there is no guarantee that, once fertilised, an egg will successfully implant in the womb. Woman who have sex, not on birth control, will lead to x number of 'aborted' babies. Woman who are on birth control, as well as having a low chance to implant, release *far* fewer eggs overall - and the numbers work out such that this actually results in fewer 'aborted' egg simply because they never get released to get fertilised at all).

 

I don't think this is quite what you're looking for, but it's relevant to what you're saying. (Scroll down to the section titled "The Biggest Killer: A Woman's Own Body" for more info and background; I've just quoted the stats in the box below.)

 

Without Birth Control:

Out of 100 fertile women without birth control, 100 of them will ovulate in any given month.

Out of those 100 released eggs, 33 will become fertilized.

Out of those 33, 18% will be rejected by the uterus.

In a group of 100 women not on birth control: 6 zygotes will “die”

 

With Birth Control:

Out of 100 fertile women on birth control, around 6 of them will ovulate in any given month.

Out of those 6 released eggs, only 2 will become fertilized.

Out of those 2, 100% will be rejected by the uterus.

In a group of 100 women on birth control: 2 zygotes will “die”

 

I thought this was really interesting to find out. U:

 

#1 My mom is heavily pro-life (including with medical abortions) which to me makes no sense because if she were to get pregnant the next pregnancy could very very easily kill her. In fact its one of the main things we argue about, how I'm pro-choice and she isn't. Though she also thinks my view will change once I have kids of my own

 

My mom is anti-choice largely because of her religion, but she's not an extremist and also feels that it isn't really her business what other women do.

 

But frankly, from his comment that "she should take responsibility for her actions" suggests to me that it's got bugger all to do with actual religious beliefs. (Other than perhaps sexism thinly-veiled as religion).

 

You know, we always hear about women being told to take responsibility for their actions, and now some people are trying to ban BC to essentially make women take responsiility. But what about men? Where do they start taking responsibility for their actions? I don't see anyone (let alone men) trying to ban vasectomies (which is, you guessed it, a highly effective form of BC). It's a painfully upsetting double standard (that's also sexist), because it says to me men can still have sex for fun but women can't and shouldn't. :<

[Zaxian]

 

But frankly, from his comment that "she should take responsibility for her actions" suggests to me that it's got bugger all to do with actual religious beliefs. (Other than perhaps sexism thinly-veiled as religion).

You know, we always hear about women being told to take responsibility for their actions, and now some people are trying to ban BC to essentially make women take responsibility. But what about men? Where do they start taking responsibility for their actions? I don't see anyone (let alone men) trying to ban vasectomies (which is, you guessed it, a highly effective form of BC). It's a painfully upsetting double standard (that's also sexist), because it says to me men can still have sex for fun but women can't and shouldn't. :<

To be honest, I think it's perfectly reasonable in the general case to suggest women and men "take responsibility for their actions" - it's just that in this case, the implication was actually 'if you're going to have sex [outside of marriage? for enjoyment? when you don't want a baby?], you should be forced to risk getting pregnant, and have that baby, whether you want it or not' which is just bizarre and completely backwards.

 

And I totally agree with the sentiment RE: men being rarely accused of not taking responsibility. It frustrates me no end the disparity between attitudes towards men vs women in terms of responsibility for 'getting pregnant', and indeed (as I've mentioned before, possibly in the sexism thread) the related 'if you're a woman you're a , if you're a man you're a stud'. But it may be that that's a conversation for another day.

[PointOfOrigin]

You know, we always hear about women being told to take responsibility for their actions, and now some people are trying to ban BC to essentially make women take responsiility. But what about men? Where do they start taking responsibility for their actions? I don't see anyone (let alone men) trying to ban vasectomies (which is, you guessed it, a highly effective form of BC). It's a painfully upsetting double standard (that's also sexist), because it says to me men can still have sex for fun but women can't and shouldn't. :<

Just butting in to say something. Today, in our biology class we got to protection part. And guess what? Every way of protection (except for condoms, where the responsibility is shared) puts responsibility only on woman.

 

Natural protection? Woman has to take care of her menstruation.

 

Diaphragm? Woman's responsibility.

 

Female version of condom? It was made in case a man doesn't have his own condom.

 

Sponge and foam? It's on women.

 

Pills? We have to stuff ourselves with chemicals and risk some of it's side effects.

 

IUD? Why, of course, it's us who have to stuff metal inside us.

 

The only form of contraception that lays on men is condom. And even that, is not exclusively their responsibility.

 

From the very beginning they are putting the responsibility on us.

 

 

 

[KageSora]

I do hate the "women need to take responsibility" but you don't hear anywhere near as much about men needing to.

 

Hey, newsflash! It takes two to make a baby--one of those has to be a man! And the man can't give birth. So, why is the woman forced to take 100% responsibility for something that's 50% the man's fault?

[Obscure_Trash]

The only form of contraception that lays on men is condom. And even that, is not exclusively their responsibility.

 

I completely agree with everything you're saying. This did remind me of an exciting development in India, I believe it was. A new form of birth control for men. I'd have to look it up again, but I believe it gets injected into their testicles and basically makes sure sperm don't produce tails, so they can't swim and meet up with an egg. I think that was the basic run down. What's awesome was that it seemed to be completely, 100% effective, lasted for 10 years (and then they could go in again), and was also completely reversible if they changed their minds. Very minor to get done.

 

Of course, a lot of (NAmerican, anyway) men's gut reactions are still "uh-uh, you ain't getting anywhere near my privates with that". >_>

 

EDIT: Apparently I forgot to quote. =_=

Edited February 27, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Syaoransbear]

I completely agree with everything you're saying. This did remind me of an exciting development in India, I believe it was. A new form of birth control for men. I'd have to look it up again, but I believe it gets injected into their testicles and basically makes sure sperm don't produce tails, so they can't swim and meet up with an egg. I think that was the basic run down. What's awesome was that it seemed to be completely, 100% effective, lasted for 10 years (and then they could go in again), and was also completely reversible if they changed their minds. Very minor to get done.

 

Of course, a lot of (NAmerican, anyway) men's gut reactions are still "uh-uh, you ain't getting anywhere near my privates with that". >_>

 

EDIT: Apparently I forgot to quote. =_=

Wow that's incredible! I should tell my husband about that, I know he wants to get snipped.

 

I think even is there were more birth control options offered to men, I'd probably still be on the pill. I just wouldn't really trust a guy to be as careful with birth control as I would be because it's me getting pregnant, not them. I don't think they'd take it as seriously.

[LascielsShadow]

I think it actually goes in the vas deferens, but yeah, it basically incapacitates the sperm, making them unable to fertilise eggs. It's called RISUG (Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance),and honestly, it sounds a lot better than a traditional vasectomy. (There's reversibility, for one, and NOT causing painful side-effects for another.) I hope it will end up being widely available once clinical trials here in the US are done.

 

 

And some other interesting news regarding the development of a male BC pill.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/...20905141916.htm

http://www.mndaily.com/2013/02/13/prof-cre...th-control-pill

[PointOfOrigin]

That is interesting and great. But I seriously doubt it that a big number of men wants to be basically infertile for ten years. I wish they could make something with a shorter duration in order to make it more mainstream.

 

I think even is there were more birth control options offered to men, I'd probably still be on the pill. I just wouldn't really trust a guy to be as careful with birth control as I would be because it's me getting pregnant, not them. I don't think they'd take it as seriously.

 

True. Not just that, but combined methods are still more secure then just one.

[Syaoransbear]

That is interesting and great. But I seriously doubt it that a big number of men wants to be basically infertile for ten years. I wish they could make something with a shorter duration in order to make it more mainstream.

It's easily reversible, so that doesn't seem like an issue.

[Obscure_Trash]

I think it actually goes in the vas deferens, but yeah, it basically incapacitates the sperm, making them unable to fertilise eggs. It's called RISUG (Reversible Inhibition of  Sperm Under Guidance),and honestly, it sounds a lot better than a traditional vasectomy. (There's reversibility, for one, and NOT causing painful side-effects for another.)  I hope it will end up being widely available once clinical trials here in the US are done.

 

 

And some other interesting news regarding the development of a male BC pill.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/...20905141916.htm

http://www.mndaily.com/2013/02/13/prof-cre...th-control-pill

Ah, thanks! I hadn't heard they were thinking of a pill form. =o

 

Personally, if I could get a shot that lasted 10 years rather than taking BC, I would. Although I'm taking BC for biological reasons, so the shot would still have to affect that. But I hate trying to remember to take the pill every day. >_e

 

Language in comments. Here is what I had read on it. Warning for some anatomy cartoons if people dun wanna see that.

 

I think even is there were more birth control options offered to men, I'd probably still be on the pill. I just wouldn't really trust a guy to be as careful with birth control as I would be because it's me getting pregnant, not them. I don't think they'd take it as seriously.

 

I agree; better safe than sorry. Although them not taking it seriously probably also has something to do with crappy education (in US, at least).

 

That is interesting and great. But I seriously doubt it that a big number of men wants to be basically infertile for ten years. I wish they could make something with a shorter duration in order to make it more mainstream.

 

It's completely reversible. o.o The article I linked says it would take 2-3 months to flush out if they want to end it earlier, but it doesn't have to be for a full 10 years if they change their mind.

Edited February 28, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[PointOfOrigin]

It completely went over my head I just can't pay proper attention this early in the morning.

Thanks for correcting me

[VeeVeeLa]

I'm wondering if that drug is age restricted? Like, up to what age can you take it? Can, say, a 16 year old have that done? Or is it for 18+?

[Kestra15]

Just butting in to say something. Today, in our biology class we got to protection part. And guess what? Every way of protection (except for condoms, where the responsibility is shared) puts responsibility only on woman.

 

Natural protection? Woman has to take care of her menstruation.

 

Diaphragm? Woman's responsibility.

 

Female version of condom? It was made in case a man doesn't have his own condom.

 

Sponge and foam? It's on women.

 

Pills? We have to stuff ourselves with chemicals and risk some of it's side effects.

 

IUD? Why, of course, it's us who have to stuff metal inside us.

 

The only form of contraception that lays on men is condom. And even that, is not exclusively their responsibility.

 

From the very beginning they are putting the responsibility on us.

Sadly that's because it is biologically easier to ensure prevention from the female end from the male end. It's also a very simple mathematical problem; we only have to stop the woman's one/two eggs a month, as opposed to the millions of sperm men produce per ejaculation. So it is biologically and mathematically easier and safer to target the female reproductive system over the male one. So I'm afraid that isn't sexism, it is just plain science.

 

However I am all for the development into effective male contraception, because it *does* take two to tango, and I would eternally be concerned if I slept with a woman who claimed to be on contraception that she might be lying, have forgotten, etc, and I would like to make sure that I know I at least am. Again it becomes a matter of mathematics; if she's on something that prevents 99% of pregnancies, and I'm on something that prevents 99% of pregnancies, then in actuality there's a 99.99% change of preventing the pregnancy - and I like those odds far more!

[catstaff]

I'm wondering if that drug is age restricted? Like, up to what age can you take it? Can, say, a 16 year old have that done? Or is it for 18+?

What drug are you asking about? The birth control pill?

 

As far as I'm aware, there is no minimum age requirement to take it. I'm in my 40s now, and I started it when I was sixteen, and my sister was about fourteen. Someone I knew was put on it at thirteen to regulate her menstrual cycle. As far as I (and my doctor) are aware, there have been no ill effects from having taken it for so long, either.