Abortion

[eritated]

Same here. And the definition for uterus was something that included the term, "unborn baby," rather than fetus/embryo/zygote, which beyond pissed me off. Honestly, the curriculum needs to be updated. It is outdated.

 

Also, I love how they talk about abstinence, but never actually talk about WHAT sex is. My cousin knows someone who's in high school and still thinks babies come from pills, and that sex is very different.

Wait hang on, their definition of a uterus was "an unborn baby"?!? Wooow they really need to fix that e__x

 

Yep, we were never taught what sex was either. It seemed to me they were under the assumption that we all already knew what it was. Most do/did, but I'm sure there are a few who didn't and still don't D:

 

They briefly went over pregnancy, and the different stages and such (even made us watch a video of a woman giving birth. I didn't go to school that day, though. Partially because I was actually sick, and also because I didn't want to see that video), but not once did they mention how to prevent pregnancies, and/or abortion. Was basically what BlightWyvern said, just scare tactics into not having sex.

[Pokemonfan13]

I went in to go on the pill specifically to see if it would help with my acne. The doctor kept asking me questions derailing me away from this. I know that some were standard questions, but the doctor did not listen to what I wanted to say at all. Just before this last semester started, I went back to the doctor. It had been over a year, and I saw NO improvement. Our health care place can never keep one doctor for very long, so I ended up seeing a different doctor. When I told them what I was there for, the nurse just looked up at me in shock and asked me who had prescribed that pill for me. Turns out the pill I was prescribed has NEVER been known to affect acne.

 

I'm still so livid over that.

Wow, that is definitely a horrible doctor.

 

I'm really happy with how my birth control was set up. I hated my periods so when I went in for my yearly gynecologist checkup and mentioned it and if any birth control might help. She suggested depoprovera [sp] and now I get a shot every 3 months and basically no periods. <3 Totally not needed as birth control, but it's free with my insurance and I am over the moon about not having a monthly bleeding.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Pokemonfan13

[BirdyRock11]

I say let people do what they want to do. It would not be my decision to abort, but everyone may have their opinions and I respect that. It is many people's only decision, and if they do abort, don't hold that against them. I am sure they have fully considered what they are doing in aborting their child.

 

~Off-topic spam removed~

Edited October 24, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[octopi]

Whoa, apparently my school actually has really good sex ed, at least compared to some of these examples o_O

 

We learned what sex was, STDs, and different types of birth control. Not how to use them specifically, but from what I remember they did say to ask a doctor about your options if you were planning on taking pills. There were some pretty gross pictures during the STD thing, but they didn't show us a video of someone giving birth or anything and we didn't use any of those super old abstinence videos. Of course there was giggling everywhere but overall it was actually somewhat informative.

 

I think Canada's at least a bit more open-minded about this kind of thing than the US. Can't speak for all of us obviously and some pretty bad things happen here too, but yeah.

[Cecona]

I became sick the day we were supposed to have our sex ed class in middle school, from what I was told it was just scare tactics and pictures of STDs and the like. In high school we had an assembly about abstinence and waiting until marriage. Basically they had young adults acting out worst case scenarios about having sex and insisted you only have sex when you're married. Obviously that didn't work as my high school had an unhealthy number of pregnant teens. At least two I knew through friends.

 

And I grew up in Texas, the state that just recently became even more anti-woman

Edited October 24, 2013 by Cecona

[hydrargyrum]

...I apparently had one of the better sex educations, and I'm from Kansas (not as bad as Texas, but certainly not known for progressiveness). I don't remember too many specifics, but it was a full class, not just an assembly, so you couldn't miss it just by missing a single day of school. Abstinence was emphasized as the only way to be totally safe, but birth control methods were mentioned (and they stressed that pull out and rhythm methods are significantly worse than condoms and pills). STDs were part of it, but I don't think it was a majority, so it wasn't just scare tactics. I even vaguely remember discussing other sexual acts, and how those don't lead to pregnancy.

 

The main thing I remember is on the first day, the teacher asked if we knew what sex actually was. A kid finally volunteered, but being in middle school wasn't comfortable being specific, so he just said "it's when you put certain body parts in other body parts". The teacher responded by putting her finger in her ear, and asking "so am I having sex?"

 

I don't remember abortion ever being mentioned as an option, but I don't remember very many details, so it's entirely possible that it was mentioned, but I just forgot.

Edited October 24, 2013 by hydrargyrum

[Kestra15]

A pharmacist is primarily a salesman that knows how to produce drugs.in no way are they qualified to judge the intricacies of their usage.

So utterly wrong. They undergo more training than nurses (5yrs compared to 3yrs - compare that to doctors, who take 7yrs, you'll start to see how well-trained pharmacists are) and know more about drugs, drug interactions, drug production, and their actions on the body than doctors. Their primary function is to make sure the doctors don't screw up by prescribing the wrong drugs, the wrong doses, the wrong times, in the wrong manners - which is far too common. That's inside and outside of hospital. They're the ones who are consulted on all matters drug-based, are the ones who literally save lives when they spot the all-too-common errors doctors make in drug prescription, advise all and sundry on drug administration - and that's before we get on to any of their health-and-wellbeing work in the community.

 

Doctors are not the all-powerful, all-knowing beings you seem to think they are, and medicine is not decided just by doctors and the rest of the healthcare team are just there to follow orders. Go spend a few months working in healthcare and you'll realise that doctors only know a limited range of the healthcare spectrum, and that the pharmacists, physiotherapists, nurses, occupational therapists, ward clerks, radiographers and everyone else are no just there to pick up the slack.

 

Any doctor who ever tries to tell you they know more about drugs than the pharmacist is one you should steer well clear of.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Kestra15

[KageSora]

thank god for the internet

Oh yeah, totally. The vast majority of what I know about sex and sexual health comes from stuff I learned online.

 

I think we may have had a few classes in middle school, but I can't remember much other than the class joking around with this girl named Gina that you "can't have vagina without GINA" because we were all immature little brats.

 

High school we had a sex ed unit in our general health class, I think we covered menstruation, some stuff like the stages of pregnancy, and condoms got a mention. IIRC, we did a brief unit on STDs. So it wasn't HORRIBLE, it was just very... Bare bones, from what I can recall.

 

What horrifies me, though, is I had to wait for being in a college-level human development course for them to touch on the idea of "no means no, it's your body and your choice, it's not consent if it's not given freely". Also that it took that long to firmly back the idea of "it's not just the female's responsibility--you're just as responsible for that baby if you have a penis so you damn well better be ready to care for it"

[Herk]

Reading all of these sex ed stories I feel like I'm reading stuff from a) something out of a Dystopian novel, something from the 1950s, or c) something from a 3rd world country.

 

In my country first sex ed happens in grade 3, when you learn the basics about anatomy, how babies develop, what a menstrual cycle is etc.. In 6th grade you have sex ed again with more focus on puberty, changes in the body and so on, and in 8th grade (maybe a bit late nowadays) you learn everything about different kinds of birth control, common misconceptions, we even talked about different kind of sexuality (which wasn't all that common 20 years ago), gender concepts and so on.

 

Yes, the teacher mentioned that the only completely safe birth control was abstinence, but then she talked about probabilities, how to take the pill the right way, double safety by using condoms and the pill and then she pulled out a condom with the words "I found this in my bedside table, it's beyond its 'best before date' so look how to handle it correctly."

 

No one ever tried to frighten us with STDs or birth videos or some such horror. Yes, STDs were mentioned but in an informative way.

 

I thank all gods that (may or may not exist) for growing up in Europe.

[brairtrainer]

Reading all of these sex ed stories I feel like I'm reading stuff from a) something out of a Dystopian novel, something from the 1950s, or c) something from a 3rd world country.

 

In my country first sex ed happens in grade 3, when you learn the basics about anatomy, how babies develop, what a menstrual cycle is etc.. In 6th grade you have sex ed again with more focus on puberty, changes in the body and so on, and in 8th grade (maybe a bit late nowadays) you learn everything about different kinds of birth control, common misconceptions, we even talked about different kind of sexuality (which wasn't all that common 20 years ago), gender concepts and so on.

 

Yes, the teacher mentioned that the only completely safe birth control was abstinence, but then she talked about probabilities, how to take the pill the right way, double safety by using condoms and the pill and then she pulled out a condom with the words "I found this in my bedside table, it's beyond its 'best before date' so look how to handle it correctly."

 

No one ever tried to frighten us with STDs or birth videos or some such horror. Yes, STDs were mentioned but in an informative way.

 

I thank all gods that (may or may not exist) for growing up in Europe.

Not all places are that bad in the states, I had a decent sex education, but there was one issue I took with it that wasn't the teachers fault but rather the school's (over heard my teacher talking to a parent about it.)

 

We weren't taught how to use condoms, but we were taught that if condoms are being used it is both the guys and girls responsibility to make sure their used, ie. Either they both keep some one hand just in case or have a strict you forgot it so no sex rule, and they stated that the girl should absolutely refuse sex if the condom is expired. The problem came from the way the curriclum had to be taught, where it was always the girls fault for unprotected sex. (This isn't the case but it was in our books that girls should remain constantly vigiulant, and while not at bad thing per se, the way it was worded was horrible.)

[Pixxelation]

Wait hang on, their definition of a uterus was "an unborn baby"?!? Wooow they really need to fix that e__x

 

Yep, we were never taught what sex was either. It seemed to me they were under the assumption that we all already knew what it was. Most do/did, but I'm sure there are a few who didn't and still don't D:

 

They briefly went over pregnancy, and the different stages and such (even made us watch a video of a woman giving birth. I didn't go to school that day, though. Partially because I was actually sick, and also because I didn't want to see that video), but not once did they mention how to prevent pregnancies, and/or abortion. Was basically what BlightWyvern said, just scare tactics into not having sex.

Nononono, so sorry; bad wording on my part! The definition included something about where the unborn baby develops, which is awful wording today.

 

At my school, Health class is pretty good at covering things, save sex ed. Even the puberty aspect's good, just the actual obscurity when it comes to sex that's problematic, as well as only teaching abstinence.

[ZzelaBusya]

We didn't have sex ed at school I don't think schools here have that subject at all...

But I used to be a very curious kid, and luckily my parents and my elder brother would never mind answering my questions, so I knew about a lot of stuff having do with childbirth, sex et cetera already when I was, like, four. Later I used the net to get the info I was interested in,

 

 

*looks around* Such a huge threeeead.

 

I think that having sex when you know nothing or very little about it is insanely stupid. On the other hand, I have nothing against abortion, I do not see it as murder at all. It's personal choice, and it really disturbs me when a woman is judged and put pressure on if she plans to do it, it's her body, life and she has the right to decide. I have always believed a woman should give birth *only* if she wants to and feels ready for it herself, no matter what her husband/mother/father/best friend/pet fish says about it and how much they may want her to.

Edited October 24, 2013 by ZzelaBusya

[Brite]

 

I have always believed a woman should give birth *only* if she wants to and feels ready for it herself, no matter what her husband/mother/father/best friend/pet fish says about it and how much they may want her to.

I'm still a LITTLE bit on the fence about the husband thing. Maybe he gets the right to talk to her about it but in the end it's her decision.

[prpldrgnfr]

Shackled and Pregnant

 

When Alicia Beltran was 12 weeks pregnant, she took herself to a health clinic about a mile from her home in Jackson, Wis., for a prenatal checkup. But what started as a routine visit ended with Beltran eventually handcuffed and shackled in government custody – and at the center of a first-of-its-kind federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state’s fetal protection law.

 

I don't even have the words for how very wrong this is.

[crazyflower]

At the hearing, her lawyers say, the judge told Beltran that an attorney would not be provided for her at that time but that she could seek counsel for her next hearing in the case. And yet, a lawyer had been appointed to represent her fetus.

 

Bold emphasis mine.

She did not get a lawyer, but the fetus does? wat

 

“It’s wrong that an unborn child gets an attorney but Alicia Beltran, the mother of that unborn child did not,” said Vanden Heuvel.

 

I agree that the fetal protection is going a little too far.

 

At the center of Beltran’s case is a 1997 Wisconsin law that grants courts authority over the fetus of any pregnant woman who “habitually lacks self-control” with drugs and alcohol “to a severe degree” such that there is “substantial risk” to the unborn child.

 

...

 

In a petition filed in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee -- the first federal challenge of an arrest of a pregnant woman under such a statute – her lawyers claim that Beltran’s constitutional rights were violated in numerous ways. The language of the Wisconsin statute is vague and lacking in medical terminology, they argue, leaving too much room for speculation. Further, they say the statute fails to guarantee due process, as well as violates other rights, including privacy and physical liberty.

 

I would also say her rights were violated. They seem to forget that she is a person and not an organic incubator.

 

Supporters of these laws say they are intended to protect unborn children. “Child abuse is child abuse, whether it’s in the womb or out of it,” said Jennifer Mason, communication director for Personhood USA, a non-profit organization seeking personhood status for fetuses.

 

No, it is not. A fetus, zygote, embryo, blastocyst is not a baby. It should not be given the same rights a a born human. By doing so you are stripping women, who are people and not mass breed machines, their rights. Which is NOT OKAY.

 

 

Some experts argue that prosecuting pregnant women can ultimately put fetuses at risk, especially when healthcare providers and social workers are the ones reporting women to authorities. There is evidence indicating that women who fear criminal charges or other state intervention are less likely to seek medical care or be honest with their doctors, said Kenneth De Ville, a medical humanities professor at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., who published a study on the Wisconsin law. “Prenatal care is really the best thing you can do to enhance fetal health,” he said. “And you’re driving women away from prenatal care.”

 

What about the women who have to deal with stress of potentially having their rights violated?

 

 

 

[ZzelaBusya]

I have always believed a woman should give birth *only* if she wants to and feels ready for it herself, no matter what her husband/mother/father/best friend/pet fish says about it and how much they may want her to.

I'm still a LITTLE bit on the fence about the husband thing. Maybe he gets the right to talk to her about it but in the end it's her decision.

Yes, my apologies if that sounded a little too harsh, what you say is actually what I meant as well =) What I wanted to say is that I find it completely wrong when people think that a woman is *supposed* to give birth no matter what. A husband certainly has all the rights to discuss it with his wife, but it needs to be her intention as well to have a child, not only his (giving birth to a child you did not want kinda defeats the whole purpose of it, to me x3).

 

Edited October 24, 2013 by ZzelaBusya

[Brite]

I'm still a LITTLE bit on the fence about the husband thing. Maybe he gets the right to talk to her about it but in the end it's her decision.

Yes, my apologies if that sounded a little too harsh, what you say is actually what I meant as well =) What I wanted to say is that I find it completely wrong when people think that a woman is *supposed* to give birth no matter what. A husband certainly has all the rights to discuss it with his wife, but it needs to be her intention as well to have a child, not only his (giving birth to a child you did not want kinda defeats the whole purpose of it, to me x3).

 

Well I still agree with you. It really angers me when a girl is pregnant and her family and friends invade her life and say things like "You better keep/raise this child. Now you'll be a mother, make the right decision." and they harass her until the day she gives birth and once she does, the family/friends disappear and slams the doors in her face when she really needs help. My family would totally do this to me. Though I wouldn't give birth, I'd get an abortion.

[ZzelaBusya]

Well I still agree with you. It really angers me when a girl is pregnant and her family and friends invade her life and say things like "You better keep/raise this child. Now you'll be a mother, make the right decision." and they harass her until the day she gives birth and once she does, the family/friends disappear and slams the doors in her face when she really needs help. My family would totally do this to me. Though I wouldn't give birth, I'd get an abortion.

*nod-nod*

 

Apart from what you said, I also think that sometimes it can end up being the opposite, aka problems and lack of care coming from the mother's side rather than of her family. "Saving a life" doesn't necessarily have positive consequences, people are all so different... If a girl doesn't want a child but is persuaded to give birth to the child anyway, there is no guarantee that she will be a caring mother and that upon giving birth she will automatically love her baby. For example, some women decide to give up their children in such cases, some children are abused, and to me, an abortion is a better alternative to a ruined childhood.

[Rosedamai]

Shackled and Pregnant

 

 

 

I don't even have the words for how very wrong this is.

What the ? The law grants pregnant animals with more rights than this woman. Ugh.

[Pokemonfan13]

To some extent I can understand the law, but it was absolutely wrongly applied in that case. And fetus protection should work with the woman if at all possible, not automatically treat her as a criminal.

 

She had a problem in the past. People can and do get over drug problems. When she was tested and the only drug in her system was the one used to help get over the drug the had a problem with, that is absolutely no grounds to do anything to her, apart from maybe periodic drug tests at their expense. And unless this drug they wanted her to take was going to be provided free of charge they should not have tried to force it on her. She stopped taking it because she couldn't afford it, so of course she is going to refuse to start taking it again.

 

And all that carp caused her to loose her job! They should absolutely sue. How can she take care of that baby they're all so concerned about without a job?

Edited October 25, 2013 by Pokemonfan13

[Brite]

Good point, that should've been brought up. And the whole thing about her not getting a lawyer but her fetus getting one is absolutely unthinkable..

[prairiecrow]

nd all that carp caused her to loose her job! They should absolutely sue. How can she take care of that baby they're all so concerned about without a job?

Honestly? I don't think it's about the baby. I think it's about punishing her for being "bad", for being one of the poor and the disadvantaged.

 

Would people who truly cared about the future family life of the fetus treat its mother this way?

[Brite]

Honestly? I don't think it's about the baby. I think it's about punishing her for being "bad", for being one of the poor and the disadvantaged.

 

Would people who truly cared about the future family life of the fetus treat its mother this way?

That's what I think. Probirthers don't care about the child. It seems they just want to punish the woman for being bad with the burden of pregnancy.

[Infinis]

Giving fetuses personhood wouldn't matter though, because no person can use another's body without their will/allowance.

 

but that article isn't really about the life of the fetus - from what I understood, the mother wants it - it's about punishing the mother for having a previous drug problem that she had already had a treatment course for and had recovered. They had no right to violate her rights in this way.

 

It also makes no sense to appoint a lawyer for a fetus and not the mother. That's just stupid and backwards.

 

and to me, an abortion is a better alternative to a ruined childhood.

 

This so much. ;a;

[whitebaron]

Well, from what i read, this has nothing really to do with her having a baby or abortions. It's about a woman who used/abused drugs, then went to see a doctor, and then went of a prescribed medicine on her own, which might potentially damage her baby. I think they would not care as much if she wanted to abort it.

 

The problem with drug abuse in pregnancy is, that you have to be consistent, or you get a junkie right out of the womb. And i think it's totally ok for the state to enforce that. You don't need additional cripples or junkies born out of a mothers stupidity.

 

btw: This should apply for more than illegal drugs, though. Smoking, Alcohol, they all have bad consquences. the laws are too easy on people doing that to their babies.

 

 

Finally, doctor-patient-confidentiality was definitely broken in that case. While its sad that it happened, it can't be helped now. But the doctor should lose his job over this, unless there's no such thing in wisconsin?