Abortion

[whitebaron]

Marie: most of the us has laws in place that void this confidentiality when a person is endangered, this obviously includes unborn children in many states.

 

That aside, why does everyone think they are all out there to punish women? Thats paranoia of the worst sort. Also, how are they even supposed to believe her when she still has opioids in her blood at the time of testing?

 

Do you simply trust potential addicts at face value?

[prpldrgnfr]

That aside, why does everyone think they are all out there to punish women? Thats paranoia of the worst sort. Also, how are they even supposed to believe her when she still has opioids in her blood at the time of testing?

 

Do you simply trust potential addicts at face value?

Because they are? It's not paranoia when it's actually happening.

 

No, I wouldn't. Hence the drug testing. As said before, she'd already *quit*, and her clean test proved it. They wanted to force her back on a drug she'd already gotten off of.

 

It seems that in many places, murderers, rapists, and for crying out loud *corpses* have more civil/constitutional rights then a pregnant woman. What part of *that* is OK?

Edited October 26, 2013 by prpldrgnfr

[Cecona]

Marie: most of the us has laws in place that void this confidentiality when a person is endangered, this obviously includes unborn children in many states.

 

That aside, why does everyone think they are all out there to punish women? Thats paranoia of the worst sort. Also, how are they even supposed to believe her when she still has opioids in her blood at the time of testing?

 

Do you simply trust potential addicts at face value?

She was clean! She had tested for the drug that helped her kick her addiction, which she got off safely, and then a second test showed she didn't even have THAT in her system. How dare you judge her because she used to be a drug user!

 

You have no idea what it's like over here, just because it's an unlikely scenario and would be thought of as paranoia where you are does not mean it's the same here. Women here are treated less than human on a daily basis.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Cecona

[whitebaron]

Because they are? It's not paranoia when it's actually happening.

 

No, I wouldn't. Hence the drug testing. As said before, she'd already *quit*, and her clean test proved it. They wanted to force her back on a drug she'd already gotten off of.

 

It seems that in many places, murderers, rapists, and for crying out loud *corpses* have more civil/constitutional rights then a pregnant woman. What part of *that* is OK?

They wanted to get her back on the substitutes, yes. Its what you do with people who abuse while pregnant.

 

There's nothing malicious about it, its standard procedure. Please reread my explanations above why thats needed for her child.

 

Also, she had her,options presented before her, and misjudged the consequences.

 

Finally - traces of the drug in her urine (not bloodtests, where it can be found a lot longer) are not a clean test. Only later tests (supposedly at the drug withdrawal site) were clean of suboxone....

[prpldrgnfr]

I'm done arguing with you, whitebaron. You obviously believe that a pregnant woman should lose all of her rights and is nothing more than an incubator.

[whitebaron]

I'm done arguing with you, whitebaron. You obviously believe that a pregnant woman should lose all of her rights and is nothing more than an incubator.

Yeah, I am another one of those men who punish women for being pregnant

those news are liberal propaganda of the worst sort, and instead of helping women, they incease their fears.

 

Now that I think of it, its very typical for us media.

[Brite]

Calm down guys..things are getting too heated..

[HeatherMarie]

They wanted to get her back on the substitutes, yes. Its what you do with people who abuse while pregnant.

 

There's nothing malicious about it, its standard procedure. Please reread my explanations above why thats needed for her child.

 

"do with people who abuse while pregnant". So, this is something that is just common knowledge, that is "DONE" to pregnant women? uh, NO. Not over here in the United States it's not. Not common, at least. It's definitely NOT "standard procedure".

 

And why, exactly, does someone who is CLEAN have to be FORCED back on "substitutes" just because they are pregnant? Re-read the articles, the fetus was HEALTHY. There was no harm done to the fetus WHATSOEVER. So medically there was absolutely NO REASON to put an EX-addict BACK on "substitutes" AFTER she had already come out completely clean. No reason. No medically valid reason. The fetus was FINE.

 

I could agree with you, in *some* sense, if they'd found that her act of weaning off the substitutes had done harm to the fetus and they were trying to prevent further harm. But that's NOT what happened.

[Mondat]

Shackled and Pregnant

"And yet, a lawyer had been appointed to represent her fetus."

Stopped reading after this line. With all due respect, this is just disgusting and sick to me. Ridiculous.

 

 

I am pro-choice - but then again, I take care to take my birth control pills or to use condoms and I never had any problems. If you cannot be responsible enough, you shouldn´t have sex in first place.

[Obscure_Trash]

I am pro-choice - but then again, I take care to take my birth control pills or to use condoms and I never had any problems. If you cannot be responsible enough, you shouldn´t have sex in first place.

You're pro-choice, but happy to sex shame? D:

[Mondat]

You're pro-choice, but happy to sex shame? D:

I am sorry, but I am not sure what you mean when you say that I am "happy to sex shame"?

[brairtrainer]

You're pro-choice, but happy to sex shame? D:

I think what she means is that if someone isn't responsible enough to try and use protection then they shouldn't be doing it by choice. It didn't sound like she'd be going around calling people names for having sex. However in response to Mondat, some people just don't know about or how to use contraceptives because parents/schools don't want to give or share the information because of 'moral' reasons.

Edited October 26, 2013 by brairtrainer

[Mondat]

I think what she means is that if someone isn't responsible enough to try and use protection then they shouldn't be doing it by choice. It didn't sound like she'd be going around calling people names for having sex. However in response to Mondat, some people just don't know about or how to use contraceptives because parents/schools don't want to give or share the information because of 'moral' reasons.

Yes, I meant it in that way - I have no idea how someone could read "happy to sex shame" out of my writing, to be honest.

 

I just don´t understand the lack of responsibility from some people. I mean, even the thickest person on earth will probaly understand that babies don´t fall from the sky.

How can someone forget about pregnancy or STD´s before or while having sex? One vaginal sexual act and you can be pregnant or have an illness. Is the sex so important? Is it so important in that moment that someone would risk getting into a situation which could change their lifes completely?

It was/is easy for me to chose to have no sex at all or to have some sexual act without fear of getting pregnant when I knew I forgot to take the pill or when there are no condoms around - why is it hard for other people?

 

in response to Mondat, some people just don't know about or how to use contraceptives because parents/schools don't want to give or share the information because of 'moral' reasons.

 

I understand that. But still, in today´s times with internet it shouldn´t be very difficult to get information yourself.

In my home country we have (or had? I haven´t been living in my home country for 6 years) a magazine called BRAVO with an extra section called "Dr. Sommer" where teenagers ask questions about sexuality and stuff is explained, and you can buy it everywhere - I started to buy this magazine when I was 12/13 because I was a huge Backstreet Boys fan and it was a music magazine in first place. My best friend and I have learnt most things from it and we were talking about the articles.

And believe it or not, I watched my first bits of gay porn together with my mother because she or I switched the channel and we landed on the adult channels and decided to be little girls (I was an legal adult already) - until we heard my grandmother coming downstairs and my mother quickly switched the channel again

So yes, it depends in what environment you grew up, too.

[NixAyum]

I just don´t understand the lack of responsibility from some people. I mean, even the thickest person on earth will probaly understand that babies don´t fall from the sky.

How can someone forget about pregnancy or STD´s before or while having sex? One vaginal sexual act and you can be pregnant or have an illness. Is the sex so important? Is it so important in that moment that someone would risk getting into a situation which could change their lifes completely?

It was/is easy for me to chose to have no sex at all or to have some sexual act without fear of getting pregnant when I knew I forgot to take the pill or when there are no condoms around - why is it hard for other people?

Education is really terrible, at least in most of the US. There's still so many misconceptions about sex, like ways to prevent pregnancy or that someone can't get pregnant on the first time.

 

Not to mention the extreme sexualization and objectification of female bodies in the US. Lots of pressure to have sex, from media to people who think it's a "right" and force partners or even casual acquaintances. People feel like they can't say no even if they don't want to, and rape is on a roll since it almost never gets punished.

 

I understand that. But still, in today´s times with internet it shouldn´t be very difficult to get information yourself.

 

Implying the internet is always a reliable source of info and not filled with other misinformed people spouting word-of-mouth whatever.

 

People are a lot more likely to ask people they trust about sensitive stuff like that, who might not know anything or might just spread more wrong information. Nobody wants to get caught googling sex stuff since it's embarrassing for messed up reasons. If you ask an adult, it's possible you get accused of having sex or you get written off as "just don't do it" or "you're not old enough" which is a whole lotta crap.

 

In my home country we have (or had? I haven´t been living in my home country for 6 years) a magazine called BRAVO with an extra section called "Dr. Sommer" where teenagers ask questions about sexuality and stuff is explained, and you can buy it everywhere - I started to buy this magazine when I was 12/13 because I was a huge Backstreet Boys fan and it was a music magazine in first place. My best friend and I have learnt most things from it and we were talking about the articles.

 

That's awesome and I am jealous because I learned most everything from the internet too. (And a lot of it was wrong, but I think I got it right.) At 22 I've never been to a doctor for sexual health. I've never seen any magazine seriously address sexual advice for younger kids/teens aside from horror stories. (Even the adult magazines aren't much better)

 

And believe it or not, I watched my first bits of gay porn together with my mother because she or I switched the channel and we landed on the adult channels and decided to be little girls (I was an legal adult already) - until we heard my grandmother coming downstairs and my mother quickly switched the channel again

So yes, it depends in what environment you grew up, too.

 

Oh man, yeah, that would never happen here. US so weird. Adults channels are all payperview, at least with our satellite. And there are legitimately people who would call child abuse on giving children/teens access to porn.

[prairiecrow]

I just don´t understand the lack of responsibility from some people. I mean, even the thickest person on earth will probaly understand that babies don´t fall from the sky.

Actually, people believe a lot of stupid things about getting pregnant -- you can't get pregnant if it's your first time, you can't get pregnant in the "doggy style" position, or if you use Coca Cola afterwards, etc. Blame poor sex education for that one, and parents who either don't care or are too ashamed to talk about the subject.

 

And there are plenty of developmentally challenged people who would indeed have a hard time understanding the matter, thank you.

Edited October 26, 2013 by prairiecrow

[Severus_S]

In my home country we have (or had? I haven´t been living in my home country for 6 years) a magazine called BRAVO with an extra section called "Dr. Sommer" where teenagers ask questions about sexuality and stuff is explained, and you can buy it everywhere - I started to buy this magazine when I was 12/13 because I was a huge Backstreet Boys fan and it was a music magazine in first place. My best friend and I have learnt most things from it and we were talking about the articles.

BRAVO is still around . BUt I suppose in germany its something of a rite of passage to have read BRAVO *g*

http://www.bravo-archiv.de/home.php

There's Bravo, Bravo Girl, Bravo Sport, a web portal, TV.....

http://www.bravosport.de/

 

And the Dr Sommer column is still there.

http://www.bravo.de/dr-sommer

[Kestra15]

In that regard, its like insulin - if you start taking it, you need to continue or the potential for disaster strikes very hard.

Bad example, insulin can be upped, downed, stopped, and even administered only for a short time.

[prairiecrow]

Bad example, insulin can be upped, downed, stopped, and even administered only for a short time.

I am a Type II diabetic, and I approve this message.

[whitebaron]

Bad example, insulin can be upped, downed, stopped, and even administered only for a short time.

in a pregnancy? not that much. upped and downed, yes, but stopped - no.

I agree with "normal" diabetes, though it should be noted that once injections reach a certain point, there's no way back - ever.

[Obscure_Trash]

Yes, I meant it in that way - I have no idea how someone could read "happy to sex shame" out of my writing, to be honest.

 

I just don´t understand the lack of responsibility from some people. I mean, even the thickest person on earth will probaly understand that babies don´t fall from the sky.

How can someone forget about pregnancy or STD´s before or while having sex? One vaginal sexual act and you can be pregnant or have an illness. Is the sex so important? Is it so important in that moment that someone would risk getting into a situation which could change their lifes completely?

It was/is easy for me to chose to have no sex at all or to have some sexual act without fear of getting pregnant when I knew I forgot to take the pill or when there are no condoms around - why is it hard for other people?

 

 

 

I understand that. But still, in today´s times with internet it shouldn´t be very difficult to get information yourself.

In my home country we have (or had? I haven´t been living in my home country for 6 years) a magazine called BRAVO with an extra section called "Dr. Sommer" where teenagers ask questions about sexuality and stuff is explained, and you can buy it everywhere - I started to buy this magazine when I was 12/13 because I was a huge Backstreet Boys fan and it was a music magazine in first place. My best friend and I have learnt most things from it and we were talking about the articles.

And believe it or not, I watched my first bits of gay porn together with my mother because she or I switched the channel and we landed on the adult channels and decided to be little girls (I was an legal adult already) - until we heard my grandmother coming downstairs and my mother quickly switched the channel again

So yes, it depends in what environment you grew up, too.

My friend used to help take calls for PP (IIRC) for people who had questions on various stuff sex ed should cover. You would be surprised what people believe and what they told her. I would truly consider some of her stories horror stories. Parents can also be a bad source of info if they're feeding you propaganda. And a lot of sex ed itself isn't that instructive and perpetuates myths (ex. that you can't get pregnant from anal sex even though it is possible).

 

Not to mention the money aspect of a lot of contraception and protection. Or allergies and other medical concerns.

 

Saying that people shouldn't have sex for your own personal reasons is, IMO, sex shaming, yes. As you said, people come from a variety of situations, and we have to respect that.

 

Unless you were just, like, wishing or something? o.o

Edited October 26, 2013 by SockPuppet Strangler

[HeatherMarie]

Actually, as read in some random National Geographic article a couple years ago, there are still plenty of tribes/people out there who *honestly believe*, usually in a religious/spiritual way, that sex is not needed at all in order to get pregnant, and sex itself does not cause pregnancy at all. And calling them "thick" because they don't know the facts is an insult.

 

You, like whitebaron and some others, need to understand that just because something is true where *you* live, doesn't mean it's true EVERYWHERE.

 

Here in the US, a horrible amount of "sex ed" consists of nothing more then "don't have sex" lectures. Nothing about contraception or pregnancy at all. If you want a child to rely solely on the internet for their sexual education, prepare for them to get TONS of completely conflicting information and they'll probably be even more confused then before they started searching. Look to parents to teach their kids the facts? Nope, that often doesn't happen either.

 

I get very upset when people automatically act like not getting pregnant is simply a case of being "responsible enough". Couldn't be farther from the truth.

[Cecona]

You won't believe the amount of people who believe pulling out is a perfectly effective method of birth control.

[Pokemonfan13]

You won't believe the amount of people who believe pulling out is a perfectly effective method of birth control.

I know. It's completely illogical. After all, you can't do it "correctly" 100% of the time, and so pregnancy can and will occur.

[TCA]

I'd imagine it helps, but as complete prevention, noooo.

[whitebaron]

I'd imagine it helps, but as complete prevention, noooo.

Well, there's theory, and there's reality.

In,theory, it can help a lot, as perfect use can bring you down to a PI of 4 and under. (unsafe sex has around 85 for young girls)

 

Reality: Who are you kidding,trusting young boys to have enough self control to never make mistakes? It still helps, but a value of over 20, like some other studies claim, seems more realistic.

 

It's definitely safer though than the only method the catholic church deems tolerable beyond abstinence. (claender method is known to be very unsafe, as the female cycle has often variances of 2-4 days)