Abortion

[tyto_alba]

I have found out slight good news. A friend of mine was able to get her tubes tied without being a mom herself and without having to be over 35. I was going to try and get this done in a few years. Bad side, with new people being elected, this opportunity may be slammed shut in my face when I'm able to have this done...

Where did she get this done, might I ask?

[Brite]

Where did she get this done, might I ask?

Well she lives in Texas. And got it done there. The man that performed it thought that women shouldn't have to be over 35 or have a kid already. He's allowed to give the procedure only if by doctoral's concent. I'm still finding more out.

 

 

 

All I know is that I could never do it. I can understand why SOME women would but other than that...

 

What do you mean by "some"? Just certain women or do you think the number of women getting abortions is low..because it's actually not

[xhunter]

Well she lives in Texas. And got it done there. The man that performed it thought that women shouldn't have to be over 35 or have a kid already. He's allowed to give the procedure only if by doctoral's concent. I'm still finding more out.

luck, i've asked around where i live but i can't seem to find someone that would preform that on me because i'm childless and 19. i'd rather adopt a child than birth one and it seems very much selfish of them not wanting woman to be able to get one (whoever made that stupid law) its not like we are under populated here.

 

at times i feel like finding things that stunt fertilization or at lest destroys the eggs sense they don't grow back once destroyed but i can't seem to find any safe methods.

[Princess Artemis]

luck, i've asked around where i live but i can't seem to find someone that would preform that on me because i'm childless and 19. i'd rather adopt a child than birth one and it seems very much selfish of them not wanting woman to be able to get one (whoever made that stupid law) its not like we are under populated here.

 

at times i feel like finding things that stunt fertilization or at lest destroys the eggs sense they don't grow back once destroyed but i can't seem to find any safe methods.

It's probably worth getting some experience into you before committing to surgery. I think you should be allowed if you can pay for it up front--it would be elective, after all, and therefore not a matter for which you might have insurance. Insurance, by nature, is for the things you don't expect or cannot help, not the things that are entirely and absolutely impossible, in medical terms, to differentiate from "just cuz I wanna". Of course, I also think that just because you should be allowed, doctors should be allowed to refuse. I understand why pretty well no ethical doctor would be willing to do such a thing for a 19 year old. You'd have better luck finding one who would cut your arm off simply because you requested it and handed them the cash.

 

As far as things that "stunt fertilization" go...condoms? Diaphragm? Cervical cap? Sponge? Spermicide? Estrogen-based contraceptive pills? There's a lot of things out there that have the aim to prevent fertilization that are also extremely effective.

[xhunter]

 

It's not really a matter of "Oh, you'll grow up and realize that you want kids one day" (I HATE HATE HATE it when people tell me that!), but more or less a matter of health.

you mean those one you have placed in your arm? i've been thinking about that and i have to see if i can earn enough money for that. though i would have to buy one every three years till i meet one requirement for a permanent one.

 

i already know that i would not be stable to raise a child or go threw the birthing process. when i had health care i went threw all types of stress pills because they make my insides go crazy under the slightest amount of stress and have had problems like that now and then. i know i'd more than likely naturally abort it though i'm more worried about the increase of stress. small kids under the age of 3 years old make me very impatient and unruly kids that know no manners at all make it worth.

 

i seriously don't think that ending up preg. by accident would be too good for me, or the unlucky fetus, or having to have a abortion if i can help it because of family. i have a high feeling if one did survive to be birthed i would have to keep it away from me because i'd likely be very aggressive to it. though if it was female i probably could cope but i don't know if it was male, not really shore why though. if i did consider birthing it would be threw a sperm donation and i would have to be 100% shore it would be female. i'm not shore if its because of the bad ex. of parents male offspring behavior that makes it worse or what. i just know i don't want a male offspring if i ever tried.

[Fuzzbucket]

you mean those one you have placed in your arm? i've been thinking about that and i have to see if i can earn enough money for that. though i would have to buy one every three years till i meet one requirement for a permanent one.

IUDs are tiny metal or plastic - um - THINGS - placed in the uterus. They stop an egg implanting.

 

The ones they put in your arm are slow release drug implants. More like the pill but without having to actually TAKE a pill

[Brite]

It's probably worth getting some experience into you before committing to surgery. I think you should be allowed if you can pay for it up front--it would be elective, after all, and therefore not a matter for which you might have insurance. Insurance, by nature, is for the things you don't expect or cannot help, not the things that are entirely and absolutely impossible, in medical terms, to differentiate from "just cuz I wanna". Of course, I also think that just because you should be allowed, doctors should be allowed to refuse. I understand why pretty well no ethical doctor would be willing to do such a thing for a 19 year old. You'd have better luck finding one who would cut your arm off simply because you requested it and handed them the cash.

 

As far as things that "stunt fertilization" go...condoms? Diaphragm? Cervical cap? Sponge? Spermicide? Estrogen-based contraceptive pills? There's a lot of things out there that have the aim to prevent fertilization that are also extremely effective.

Extreme isn't enough for me. If there's still a chance, no matter if it's 3%, it's not enough. I don't understand why we can't sterilize by choice

[Princess Artemis]

Extreme isn't enough for me. If there's still a chance, no matter if it's 3%, it's not enough. I don't understand why we can't sterilize by choice

I think you can do so by choice, but since it's surgery, you can't very well do it by yourself, so you must involve someone else who is agrees with you and practices medicine. Depending on how young you are, I don't think you'll find an ethical doctor who will be willing to do it. At 30 with no kids? I think someone would have a much better chance of finding an ethical doctor willing to perform such a surgery at that age than they would at 19.

 

You've got to realize that when you want elective surgery, you have to find someone willing to provide it. I'm sure there would be a doctor out there somewhere willing to slightly break someone's reproductive system at a very young age just because no other birth control is good enough for him or her. I personally would not trust such a doctor as far as I could throw them, but y'know, freedom and all.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Princess Artemis]

@ Princess - Well, the matter of the subject is, though, why should we have to find a doctor who agrees with the ethicality (look, ma! I made up a word!) of our decision. Just kinda falls back onto what Kittygrl said - If you can't trust a woman with a decision, why should you trust her with a child?

Because doctors are people too, that's why.

 

Doctors are not soulless vending machines of medical procedures to which you can insert coins and receive the surgery of your choice. I know that some people think they are just because they are in a field that people tend to need a lot to live, but it just isn't so. They are human beings and must consent to the act that they are to perform. If the doctor does not consent, you cannot get what you want from them. Consent works for all of us--if you want people to respect your consent, whether given or not, then respect that others have consent to give or not to give.

 

Doctors, I find, are way more willing to sterilize a man without children than a woman without children. And at a younger age, too. Why is that? Is it because men can preserve their sperm in a sperm bank for 5 years and still have children after he's sterilized? Is it because women cannot have children after a sterilizing procedure at all (unless it's reversible, which it very rarely is)? I find it mildly irritating, at the very least.

 

Now that's the real question, innit? I don't know why that is. Possibly for the very basic animalistic reason that sperm are nigh infinitely disposable and eggs are not. Same reason that historically men went to war and got killed and women didn't. Biologically speaking, men are less necessary to the continuation of the species. Only takes a few men to get a lot of women pregnant so it doesn't matter as much if one is taken "out of service".

 

Is that equitable? No, not particularly. It's not baseless, however. Worth asking why it's that way and if it isn't time to change that thinking.

 

ETA: I'd be really surprised to hear of a doctor giving a 19 year old a vasectomy without a medical reason. And I wouldn't trust that doctor very much. I add because I'm uncertain it's entirely clear I've been talking about both all along rather than just tubal ligation.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[hazeh]

I was driving around today and was behind a van with a giant sticker on the bumper that read: "ABORTION. One dead, one wounded" with a small picture of a crying woman in the corner.

 

Needless to say, the sound of annoyance I made was something akin to that of a dying pterodactyl.

[hazeh]

That reminds me; Almost everyone at my band is anti-abortion. Pretty much all the cars have bumper-stickers that say 'It a child, not a choice.' or stupid religious thing.

What I find funny is that children are choices. Choices that parents make.

/sigh

[Princess Artemis]

Tattoo artists do not give their consent to tattoo someone - and, if they turn someone down, it is because they cannot do what the customer is asking for for lack of skill.

 

Why should it not be the same way with doctors? Both results from a tattoo artist and doctor are semi-permanent to permanent. Why should doctors get the right to tell us what we should and shouldn't do with our bodies? Just because they've got degree? Imo, that still doesn't make it right. I'm sure a few of you who have jobs have had to do something you don't agree with, or else be fired for not doing it. Again, why should doctors be any different? (Besides the fact that most, not all, work for themselves.)

 

Personally, I don't see any difference between a senator/president and a  doctor telling you what you should and shouldn't do with your body - it's YOUR body. You have the right to make the decisions about it. And not a damn person should be able to tell you what to do otherwise. It's like oppression, but worse...

?

 

Seriously, I don't understand what you're saying. If a tattoo artists tattoos someone...unless the tattoo artist is coerced to do so or is a slave, then, they gave their consent. If they refuse to do something because they lack the skill, guess what? They are not consenting!

 

That's what consent is.

 

And quite honestly, I do believe I was saying that it is, or should be, that way with doctors. If a doctor refuses to perform a surgery for you due to ethical reasons, they are not telling you what to do with your body. They are telling you what they will not do with their own body.

 

If a tattoo artist looks at you and says, "No, I'm not going to tattoo you," they are no more telling you that you cannot have tattoos than a doctor who says, "No, I will not do this surgery for you," is telling you that you cannot have the surgery. They are just saying they will not do it. They are telling you, "My body, my choice. I chose not to use my body to do this for you."

 

Sure, it's your body. You can make decisions about it. But if your decisions require second parties, the second parties have to be on-board with you. Because guess what? You do not get to make decisions for their bodies.

 

You want respect for your body? Respect the bodies of others. You want them to respect your right to consent? Respect theirs.

 

Short version: I won't do this for you != You should have no right to this thing. Just because Billy won't consent to share his cookies with you doesn't mean the world is saying you are never to be allowed cookies, and therefore he must be forced to share with you so you won't be oppressed. To think otherwise is to have an extraordinarily entitled mindset.

 

Yet again, another good point. Men produce their end of the deal all the time, women, however, are born with the amount whatever they've got, and that's it. But, if you want to speak biologically, why would you sterilize men when their just as important as women, if only for the fact that, despite a few men being able to impregnate a lot of women, over time, there would be inbreeding because of the lack of "new blood" being introduced into the population. It's like breeding stock cattle. You can't use the same couple of bulls over and over - eventually you'll have sires breeding to their offspring, or their offspring breeding with one another.

 

So, really, men ARE just as important as women in prospects of reproducing and population.

 

Whatever the case, I agree that it's time that the entire "men < women" equation when it comes to reproduction does need to be changed, and that women should be able to be sterilized as easily as men. (Which, really, does need to happen - Earth is being overpopulated too quickly.)

 

Biologically speaking...no, the males aren't as important. They just aren't. If there were only half as many men on Earth as women, the human species would be A-OK for genetic diversity, as long as it didn't last very long.

 

That is, of course, only speaking biologically. In every human way that matters, men are just as important as women. Fathers are as important as mothers, and it drives me up walls when so many forget that.

 

I think if there is a gender inequality on the matter of when a person can be voluntarily sterilized, it should be rectified.

 

I'm not even going to get into the overpopulation thing. Sounds too close to some other terrible things I've been reading about recently, and I'm not in the mood. This thread usually reminds me anyway, but eh.

 

Not a 19 year old, no, but put him at age 20 or 21 and I can assure you that a he'd have better chances at getting the procedure than a woman.

 

Gotta source? I'm curious, since that sounds very young to be giving childless men vasectomies for no medical reason.

 

ETA:

 

What I find funny is that children are choices. Choices that parents make.

/sigh

 

Sex is a choice. Children tend to be a result of such choices. So I can see what they're getting at. Plus, I'm not a choice, I'm my parents' child. Children are humans, not abstracts like choices. Are you a choice? Maybe you're Schrodinger's Hazeh? ; )

Edited July 1, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[hazeh]

 

 

Sex is a choice.  Children tend to be a result of such choices.  So I can see what they're getting at.  Plus, I'm not a choice, I'm my parents' child.  Children are humans, not abstracts like choices.  Are you a choice?  Maybe you're Schrodinger's Hazeh? ; )

Maybe I am ;D

 

Children ARE choices. Choices to procreate, choices to adopt, choices to bring to term, choices to raise. Just because they are living beings does not mean they aren't also choices. So that whole "It's a child, not a choice" is pretty invalid to me, because there IS a choice involved with bringing a child into the world.

 

Edit:

I was a choice. Not to be conceived, but to be continued to term (: My mother made that choice, not me, not my grandparents, not anyone else.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[Princess Artemis]

I see what you're getting at, too. There are many choices involved fer sher. I'm glad my sister decided to carry her children, because my nephews are fantastic people, but I'd not consider them choices. They're way more than that. They're people.

 

But yes, a lot of choices were involved when it came to them.

[hazeh]

That is true. But they wouldn't be if it weren't for a choice made by their biological parents, so people who brush off choices are a wee bit ignorant, imo.

 

Some people don't make the right choices, that is also true. But procreating and being a parent- those are choices. Not mandates by the human race.

[Princess Artemis]

Some people don't make the right choices, that is also true. But procreating and being a parent- those are choices.

So is choosing to believe that once procreation has been accomplished (i.e., there is a child), the choice to procreate has already been made. That's not ignorance--it's a different worldview which you do not share.

[Ashes The Second]

I agree with basically everything said, but godofthedead -- Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with the whole 'entitled mindset' :/

[Brite]

I was driving around today and was behind a van with a giant sticker on the bumper that read: "ABORTION. One dead, one wounded" with a small picture of a crying woman in the corner.

 

Needless to say, the sound of annoyance I made was something akin to that of a dying pterodactyl.

Propaganda vs Propoganda. I've actually seen another sticker that said "Banning abortion=*picture of coat hanger with a trickle of blood on one of the corners*"

[Kestra15]

Why is it doctors must give their consent to perform any type of surgery?

So they can sleep at night.

[hazeh]

So is choosing to believe that once procreation has been accomplished (i.e., there is a child), the choice to procreate has already been made. That's not ignorance--it's a different worldview which you do not share.

Then they are ignoring the choice to be a parent, which not everyone who makes the choice to procreate makes as well. There is not just one choice that goes into bringing a child into the world, and stubbornly turning your (general) nose to the others that go into the entire decision-making process is ignorance, in my eyes.

[Princess Artemis]

Then they are ignoring the choice to be a parent, which not everyone who makes the choice to procreate makes as well. There is not just one choice that goes into bringing a child into the world, and stubbornly turning your (general) nose to the others that go into the entire decision-making process is ignorance, in my eyes.

You seem to forget that a great many of the people who would sport such a bumper sticker advocate adoption and I'd not be surprised to find many were adoptive parents themselves. If adoption is not choosing to be a parent, I'm not sure what is.

 

That still doesn't make it ignorant to believe that once procreation has occurred, the choice to procreate has been made, and therefore, it's a little late to take the results of said procreation (the child) and decide, oh, no, wait, don't want to procreate, let's kill it.

 

It's also a bumper sticker, not a manifesto.

 

However, it's your worldview, and you can believe that people who don't see things the way you do are less informed than you are.

 

(Nobody better argue with me about the use of the word "kill". Because even if you think fetuses are invasive parasites or equivalent to cancers, what do you do with tapeworms and cancers? Kill them.)

[Mommy_Kitty]

That still doesn't make it ignorant to believe that once procreation has occurred, the choice to procreate has been made, and therefore, it's a little late to take the results of said procreation (the child) and decide, oh, no, wait, don't want to procreate, let's kill it.

If the abortion was baned worldwide what wuld you go to say to a girl that was RAPED, well i`m sorry lady but you must give birth to a child and be reminded for your whole life that the worst thing posible happned to you to, one monster violated you and now you must bear his child becouse it was a gift of god. It is true that she can later give the child up for adoption, but giveing birth to monsters child is the worst posible thing i can imagine right after rape itself. I know that if that wuld happen to me and i culd not go to abortion i wuld cut up myself and remove the SEED of EVIL, as it is not created out of love but from pure evilness and something like this shuld never be born.

[Princess Artemis]

The fact that I can understand and appreciate a point of view does not make it my point of view.

[hazeh]

You seem to forget that a great many of the people who would sport such a bumper sticker advocate adoption and I'd not be surprised to find many were adoptive parents themselves. If adoption is not choosing to be a parent, I'm not sure what is.

 

That still doesn't make it ignorant to believe that once procreation has occurred, the choice to procreate has been made, and therefore, it's a little late to take the results of said procreation (the child) and decide, oh, no, wait, don't want to procreate, let's kill it.

 

It's also a bumper sticker, not a manifesto.

 

However, it's your worldview, and you can believe that people who don't see things the way you do are less informed than you are.

 

(Nobody better argue with me about the use of the word "kill". Because even if you think fetuses are invasive parasites or equivalent to cancers, what do you do with tapeworms and cancers? Kill them.)

Then what about the choice to not carry to term? To not endure pregnancy? As I said, there are many choices that go into child-making, and some people don't make the choices that others want them to make. You (general) can't just brush aside one of those choices because of other ones that were made. To be a proper parent, one has to make all the choices that follow that path. But they are choices for a reason, and it is up to the mother to make those choices, not someone who is not involved in the process whatsoever.

 

I didn't say it was ignorant to believe that once procreation has occurred that the choice has been made. It is ignorant to believe that no other choice is involved with the child once procreation has been achieved.

 

I don't believe kill is the right term. That implies that the subject at hand has actually established life in some form. I do not believe that a fetus is an established life, I belief it is a potential life, something that it going to soon be an established life. Just as I would not consider smashing an acorn to be killing a tree, or much less killing anything.

[Princess Artemis]

Then what about the choice to not carry to term? To not endure pregnancy? As I said, there are many choices that go into child-making, and some people don't make the choices that others want them to make. You (general) can't just brush aside one of those choices because of other ones that were made. To be a proper parent, one has to make all the choices that follow that path. But they are choices for a reason, and it is up to the mother to make those choices, not someone who is not involved in the process whatsoever.

 

I didn't say it was ignorant to believe that once procreation has occurred that the choice has been made. It is ignorant to believe that no other choice is involved with the child once procreation has been achieved.

 

I don't believe kill is the right term. That implies that the subject at hand has actually established life in some form. I do not believe that a fetus is an established life, I belief it is a potential life, something that it going to soon be an established life. Just as I would not consider smashing an acorn to be killing a tree, or much less killing anything.

What about those choices? Again, a bumper sticker isn't a manifesto, but I'd submit to you that people who put such bumper stickers on their cars believe that once one has made the choice to procreate, one has made the choice to carry to term. They're shifting the responsibility earlier, to when one has a choice to do or not do something without getting into medical intervention, to a point where the choice can be made without deciding a child's extant life is less important than the choice. The choice that could have been made before there were children involved at all. The choices that can, in the vast majority of the situations, be made thoughtfully and well beforehand. That can quite clearly be made before any procreating gets underway.

 

ETA: Not to say that people actually do these things. Just that they can be done, quite obviously so, and such choices once made can be reiterated and also changed when new information comes to light.

 

OK, if people who tote such bumper stickers around really do believe there are no other choices involved in children, then that's pretty short sighted, but a bumper sticker that says, "It's a child, not a choice", does not exactly inform you that they do believe that there are NO OMG choices involved, does it? You're calling people ignorant based on your worldview and preconceptions of them, not based on any actual understanding of where they are coming from.

 

So, you've redefined "alive" in order to do away with the uncomfortable words rather than be open to the idea that killing a seed is...really not a criminal offense (for which the ethical vegetarians of the world are grateful). Good to know.

 

ETA2: Fetuses would be equivalent to oak saplings, you realize. You might not feel bad about plucking one out of the ground because it's growing in a bad spot, but you are killing an oak sapling. Or I could be wrong, maybe you, personally, do have an established point in mind when a seedling becomes "alive" and is able to be killed. Perhaps once it has put on its first branch, then it qualifies as alive?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Princess Artemis