Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

May I very respectfully ask a question?

 

I know that some states have laws requiring abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Or at the least, there was talk of such laws. What I am wondering is... why are some pro-choice people so opposed to this idea? I mean.... whatever your stand on abortion it is a procedure that DOES have the potential to go wrong. Wasn't the big argument for legalizing it so that desperate women wouldn't be driven to get unregulated, dangerous 'back-alley' abortions where they would have little chance to get help in the event of a problem? Wasn't part of the idea that IF it is happening anyway, it may as well be out in the open so that it can be regulated and made safer?

 

Not trying to be difficult on this but an genuinely curious of the thinking there.

It's unnecessary because if something did go wrong, any ER would treat her, whether or not her doctor has admitting privileges, just as if it were any other trauma.

Share this post


Link to post
It's unnecessary because if something did go wrong, any ER would treat her, whether or not her doctor has admitting privileges, just as if it were any other trauma.

^^^ It's just a tactic to shut down clinics and remove access to reproductive health services.

http://theweek.com/articles/559840/admitti...bortion-america

 

The problem is that because hospitals don't want to become embroiled in abortion politics, they regularly refuse admitting privileges to doctors who perform abortions. For example, doctors at the last abortion clinic in Mississippi applied for admitting privileges to seven hospitals in the area, and were refused at every one.

 

So what happens if you're a woman who had an abortion and you find yourself experiencing complications, but your doctor doesn't have admitting privileges at the local hospital? Well, you go to whatever hospital you like (or, if it's a real emergency, the paramedics take you to one), and you get treated. If the doctors at the hospital need to consult with the doctor who performed your abortion, they pick up the phone and call her. Which is pretty much exactly what will happen if your doctor does have admitting privileges.

Share this post


Link to post
It's unnecessary because if something did go wrong, any ER would treat her, whether or not her doctor has admitting privileges, just as if it were any other trauma.

So BASICALLY.... it is a problem of while an ER or hospital would treat a woman suffering from complications due to an abortion, they don't really want to make it publically known that they do so?

 

That sort of stinks, IMO.

 

I mean... whatever your view on abortions , at THAT point, isn't the important thing that the woman gets the help she needs? The abortion has, in fact already happened... and it isn't as if the hospital or ER had anything to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post

So BASICALLY.... it is a problem of while an ER or hospital would treat a woman suffering from complications due to an abortion, they don't really want to make it publically known that they do so?

 

That sort of stinks, IMO.

 

Yeah, essentially the hospitals are unwilling to take a stand, it's a medical procedure, between a patient and their doctor, and to butt the heck out of a situation that has nothing to do with (g)you. There's even one hospital that was unwilling to allow a woman with a brain tumor to get a tubal ligation per her doctor's orders cause religion. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
So BASICALLY.... it is a problem of while an ER or hospital would treat a woman suffering from complications due to an abortion, they don't really want to make it publically known that they do so?

 

That sort of stinks, IMO.

It's not even that, it's that hospitals are so desperate to stay out of abortion politics that they don't want to publicly affiliate themselves with a doctor who performs abortions. And really, that's all "admitting privileges" means... it means Dr. X has some minor connection with Hospital Y. Just enough of one that Dr. X can send a patient to Hospital Y and that patient will be admitted directly, rather than have to go through an exam/trauma treatment in the ER before being admitted.

 

So yeah, it's basically BS. Urgent care clinics mostly don't require their doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, but it doesn't stop them from sending patients who need hospitalization to a hospital. Happened to my dad a couple of years ago when my folks were on a trip to Las Vegas. He'd had a cold and started feeling worse, so my mom finally got him to go to an urgent care clinic, thinking sinus infection and he'd need antibiotics. Turns out he had pneumonia, which had kicked off some complications with his diabetes, which then instigated a mild heart attack. The clinic basically took one look at him and said, yeah, we can help you... you can lie down here while we call 911 for an ambulance! Dad had to go through the ER, but was admitted no problem, even though no doctor at the urgent care clinic had admitting privileges.

 

And that's all an abortion clinic would have to do, if a complication arose during the procedure that they couldn't handle right there... call for an ambulance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
It's not even that, it's that hospitals are so desperate to stay out of abortion politics that they don't want to publicly affiliate themselves with a doctor who performs abortions. And really, that's all "admitting privileges" means... it means Dr. X has some minor connection with Hospital Y. Just enough of one that Dr. X can send a patient to Hospital Y and that patient will be admitted directly, rather than have to go through an exam/trauma treatment in the ER before being admitted.

 

So yeah, it's basically BS. Urgent care clinics mostly don't require their doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, but it doesn't stop them from sending patients who need hospitalization to a hospital. Happened to my dad a couple of years ago when my folks were on a trip to Las Vegas. He'd had a cold and started feeling worse, so my mom finally got him to go to an urgent care clinic, thinking sinus infection and he'd need antibiotics. Turns out he had pneumonia, which had kicked off some complications with his diabetes, which then instigated a mild heart attack. The clinic basically took one look at him and said, yeah, we can help you... you can lie down here while we call 911 for an ambulance! Dad had to go through the ER, but was admitted no problem, even though no doctor at the urgent care clinic had admitting privileges.

 

And that's all an abortion clinic would have to do, if a complication arose during the procedure that they couldn't handle right there... call for an ambulance.

May I comment that I find it interesting that that many hospitals feel that strongly about it?

Share this post


Link to post
May I comment that I find it interesting that that many hospitals feel that strongly about it?

Tbh, I'm not really surprised considering a) the sheer number of sidewalk harassers, and b) the history of violence against any place that offers abortion services.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion..._property_crime

 

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[i 15] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[i 21]

 

I'm guessing hospitals don't face quite as much violence or daily harassment.

Share this post


Link to post
May I comment that I find it interesting that that many hospitals feel that strongly about it?

As Sock says, worry about sidewalk harassers and threats of violence. I'd also guess (guess only, nothing verified here) worry about loss of funding. I've no idea where most hospitals get theirs from, but I'm sure any hint of said funding getting reduced would have the entire accounting department up in arms.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

There's also those hospitals that are religious IE Catholic and they are forbidden to offer contraception services much less be affiliated with an abortion provider. And that is a growing chunk of them. One thing that can be done with manipulating the health care system is that if it's done in such a way as private hospitals without church backing suffer and close, everyone's options become restricted by default.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm extremely pro-life and I get the feeling many here are not, so I'll speak my piece and vamoose.

 

But, can't we as a society focus more on finding awesome new ways to prevent pregnancy entirely, rather than approve abortion? I've heard stories of women being denied uterus removal by snide doctors who think all women should give birth and on the happier side I've heard about an injectable, reversible male birth control that's 100% effective by blocking the sperm ducts. These are the things we should work on (eliminating the former and encouraging the latter, obviously), because with it we would no longer NEED abortion in 99% of cases (rape and mother's health are different subjects, I'm talking about accidental pregnancy cases). And isn't that something we can ALL get behind?

 

To say nothing of ensuring fair wages and child support so that those who do want children can give them the best. ^^

 

I'm a feminist. I think women have gotten the short stick time and time again throughout the world. But I don't think unrestricted abortion is a woman's right. I think demanding services that would prevent the need for it is. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Just one itty thing.

 

Those services were available to me. I used them. There is such a thing as contraceptive failure. I was lucky not to live somewhere where doctors refused to help.

Share this post


Link to post

Ideally we would live in a world where abortions weren't necessary. Sadly though the world isn't perfect. The first choice SHOULD be contraceptions and I've never come upon a case where that wasn't the case. Yes, we should do our best to raise awareness and come up with even more and better options for our first choice.

 

But that can never ever mean that we get rid of the second choice, our failsave so to speak.

 

And sadly enough a lot of people who proclaim themselves to be pro-life also condemn the first option sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I'm extremely pro-life and I get the feeling many here are not, so I'll speak my piece and vamoose.

 

But, can't we as a society focus more on finding awesome new ways to prevent pregnancy entirely, rather than approve abortion? I've heard stories of women being denied uterus removal by snide doctors who think all women should give birth and on the happier side I've heard about an injectable, reversible male birth control that's 100% effective by blocking the sperm ducts. These are the things we should work on (eliminating the former and encouraging the latter, obviously), because with it we would no longer NEED abortion in 99% of cases (rape and mother's health are different subjects, I'm talking about accidental pregnancy cases). And isn't that something we can ALL get behind?

 

To say nothing of ensuring fair wages and child support so that those who do want children can give them the best. ^^

 

I'm a feminist. I think women have gotten the short stick time and time again throughout the world. But I don't think unrestricted abortion is a woman's right. I think demanding services that would prevent the need for it is. smile.gif

So, that male birth control (Vasalgel) is promising but I don't think it's even started human trials yet; the Parsemus Foundation's page for it still has a note that clinical trials are expected to start sometime in 2016. And once those trials start it'll still take at least a year.

 

This is promising and fantastic, but it's not here yet and may not be here soon.

 

~

 

This is not a perfect world. People refuse birth control for whatever reason, people deny their partners birth control (usually as a form of control and abuse), people don't know about it, whatever else.

 

People WILL find a way out of pregnancy if they want one, and I think it does a great disservice to say the least to deny people the right to terminate their pregnancies safely. It's not unheard of for people to be murdered or to kill themselves over a pregnancy.

 

And let's not forget the negative effects on the children born to people who were forced to give birth, or couldn't afford BC/abortion. Mental and behavioural health problems are well documented in adopted/foster children.

 

I totally agree that birth control needs to be the first line of defense. But there are so many downsides to denying safe, legal abortion services that it's not worth it to deny them.

 

Now...I am also a feminist. I also think women have received the short end of the stick time and again the world over. But I think it is absolutely a woman's right to decide what she wants to do with her body. Forced birth is never an acceptable option, either medically or morally.

Edited by Infinis

Share this post


Link to post

It's not unheard of for people to be murdered or to kill themselves over a pregnancy.

I've seen the estimation of about 10 million pregnant women every year killing 4 million women attempting to kill themselves due to pregnancy every year...

((Correction because recollection memory shuffled the numbers around a bit - 10 million is the total for attempts by women every year according to the given source.))

 

And rare as it is, there are some cases of abusive partners secretly swapping their SO's birth control with something else, or poking holes in condoms, or... In one case I know of, it was the children of the couple doing it - I'm speaking children young enough to just understand that condoms are for something icky.

Edited by Shienvien

Share this post


Link to post

I've preached it a lot, but if you want to lower abortion rates, here are some things you should support and advocate for:

- Comprehensive sex ed

- Free or at least affordable birth control and contraception

- Accessible family planning services

- Have religious leaders support these services

 

In the Netherlands, abortion is freely available on demand. Yet the Netherlands boasts the lowest abortion rate in the world, about 6 abortions per 1000 women per year, and the complication and death rates for abortion are miniscule. How do they do it? First of all, contraception is widely available and free — it’s covered by the national health insurance plan. Holland also carries out extensive public education on contraception, family planning, and sexuality. An ethic of personal responsibility for one’s sexual activity is strongly promoted. Of course, some people say that teaching kids about sex and contraception will only encourage them to have lots of sex. But Dutch teenagers tend to have less frequent sex, starting at an older age, than American teenagers, and the Dutch teenage pregnancy rate is 9 times lower than in the U.S.

 

^ That's a summary from tumblr, but here's a source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

 

I will always support abortion being legal and available to people because things will always happen, but I do heavily support all of the above as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Just one itty thing.

 

Those services were available to me. I used them. There is such a thing as contraceptive failure.  I was lucky not to live somewhere where doctors refused to help.

I think that was ADP's point.... at least in part. IF we focused as much energy on discovering new and better ( less likely to fail) forms of BC as we do now on ARGUING about abortion... sometimes, I might add , in not very helpful ways... then abortions would be less common because there wouldn't be the need for them.

 

That those of us who are prolife MIGHT be better served by trying to reduce the perceived need for abortions than banning them.

Edited by Silverswift

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen the estimation of about 10 million pregnant women every year killing themselves...

Somehow I doubt prenatal suicide beats cancer for lives claimed annually.

Share this post


Link to post
Somehow I doubt prenatal suicide beats cancer for lives claimed annually.

Yeah'd, I'd be interested in a source for that claim since all I could find is that one million people commit suicide each year. And that stat is not even gender separated.

 

That those of us who are prolife MIGHT be better served by trying to reduce the perceived need for abortions than banning them.

 

There's no might about it. We can see in history what happens when abortion is banned (more people die from unsafe abortions but the rate doesn't lower), and we have examples of several places with lower abortion rates (which all boast this success to things on the list I mentioned earlier, none of which include banning abortion). =)

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah'd, I'd be interested in a source for that claim since all I could find is that one million people commit suicide each year. And that stat is not even gender separated.

 

 

 

There's no might about it. We can see in history what happens when abortion is banned (more people die from unsafe abortions but the rate doesn't lower), and we have examples of several places with lower abortion rates (which all boast this success to things on the list I mentioned earlier, none of which include banning abortion). =)

*Nods* I for ONE would strongly support some sort of BC for dudes to use, like was mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
I think that was ADP's point.... at least in part. IF we focused as much energy on discovering new and better ( less likely to fail) forms of BC as we do now on ARGUING about abortion... sometimes, I might add , in not very helpful ways... then abortions would be less common because there wouldn't be the need for them.

 

That those of us who are prolife MIGHT be better served by trying to reduce the perceived need for abortions than banning them.

There is still always a fail rate. (Even the pill isn't effective when you are on antibiotics, to name but one...)

 

The only CERTAIN SURE method I know is hysterectomy... and castration for men - but that wouldn't go down too well. Even if you are with a guy who's had a vasectomy; even if you decide on abstinence - you can get raped. sad.gif Abortion MUST remain available and a woman's right. No one is FORCING anyone to have one if they don't want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah'd, I'd be interested in a source for that claim since all I could find is that one million people commit suicide each year. And that stat is not even gender separated.

It was earlier in this thread, I believe. *checks*

 

Correction (confused the numbers a bit there - 10 million was the overall for (known? estimated?) attempts regardless of cause):

10 million women attempt suicide every year. 4 million because of pregnancy. In the US alone, 14,000 women committed suicide because of their pregnancies in 2009. Another 3,000 were inconclusive with suicide suspected.

 

Share this post


Link to post

There is still always a fail rate. (Even the pill isn't effective when you are on antibiotics, to name but one...)

 

The only CERTAIN SURE method I know is hysterectomy... and castration for men - but that wouldn't go down too well. Even if you are with a guy who's had a vasectomy; even if you decide on abstinence - you can get raped. sad.gif Abortion MUST remain available and a woman's right. No one is FORCING anyone to have one if they don't want to.

 

It is true that, as you say, no BC is absolutely perfect.

 

It also is true that, in general, women don't get abortions because they are pleasant.

They get them Because they are desperate and see no other choice... and laws can't help that.

 

I was merely pointing OUT that , if BC were more effective.... yes abortions still might happen, but they would likely be fewer and further between. THAT would, I think we can agree, be a desirable outcome?

Edited by Silverswift

Share this post


Link to post

It is true that, as you say, no BC is absolutely perfect.

 

It also is true that, in general, women don't get abortions because they are pleasant.

They get them Because they are desperate and see no other choice... and laws can't help that.

 

I was merely pointing OUT that , if BC were more effective.... yes abortions still might happen, but they would likely be fewer and further between. THAT would, I think we can agree, be a desirable outcome?

Absolutely. But there are still those who do believe it is murder - and who would like to make it against the law. I CANNOT accept that. Ever. Personal morality/religion has no place in legislation. (Or as the great Pierre Trudeau said: "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation".)

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I think abortion is very much at the edge. But mostly, I'm pro life.

 

I once read an article in a German magazine (about, uh, 15-20 years ago, I think) about a woman who considered abortion to be just another form of birth control - and had had many abortions. (Somewhere between 5 and 7, don't remember exactly.) Seriously, she preferred to have abortions over other kinds of birth control. I found that astounding, and very, very wrong morally. And I feel like people like that should be denied abortion. Because abortion is not birth control, and shouldn't be used that way time and again. In many of these cases, at least in my home country with very little racial diversity and lots of couples waiting to be able to adopt, adoption is an alternative to consider.

 

On the other hand, there are cases where I totally think that abortion is justified. Cases of abuse and rape, a horribly sick child (anencephaly, for example) or risk to the life or health of the mother are reasons that I feel are valid for a termination. I'm sure there are other "good reasons", too, but I don't think I named them all.

 

Other cases I'm rather unsure about, like social and economic reasons (the mother is considered too young to have a child, she'll suffer monetarily for having a baby...) and so on because in many cases (not all, mind you!), adoption could be an alternative, and should be considered as such.

 

When I got pregnant while still in the middle of my studies, I was faced with the "good" advice to consider abortion. I didn't.

Would my life have been different if I had chosen differently? Most assuredly, yes. But I doubt it would have been better. Most certainly, it would have been more empty than it is now.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.