RE: Birth control = abortion? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Lynnxz -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 10:14:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

Shrugs,if more people got thier tubes tied and quit fucking around, we'd have less of a need for condoms AND abortion. And there is not much that a bluenose can say about you geting fixed as a birth control method.




*Chases after Leatherist with a pair of scissors....c'mere you!*

I'd get mine tied in a heartbeat, if they would let me. :-/



MusicalBoredom -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 11:04:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: corsetgirl

I am also aware that some drug stores would not sell birth control medications because of their views on the "morality" of the female, this is also very wrong because I am on it but for other health reasons.


....while i consider the idea that birth control is a form of abortion is a wholly reprehensible argument, i do take issue with the small quote above. For the same reason that no doctor ought to be forced to perform an abortion, so no pharmacist should be forced to sell something they find morally wrong. i am absolutely not suggesting that such pharmacists are correct, in fact, i think they're wrong, but if it is a genuine belief it ought to be respected.


Exactly what I was saying -- freedom to choose and live up to your beliefs is freedom to choose and live up to your beliefs no matter which side of the coin you are on.



hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 11:10:47 AM)

What most people fail to realize is that doctors are Extremely reluctant to do a Tubal Ligation in many cases.
  • If a woman already has half a dozen kids, yeah - they'll consider it without giving her to much grief or trying to talk her out of it.
  • If a woman has gone through a half dozen miscarriages though, no - cause "well next time you might actually manage to carry to term."
  • If a woman is relatively Young - like under the age of 35 - if she doesn't have kids already, they'll Swear that she's gonna change her mind (regardless of what her personal reasons might be for not wanting to have children) - and if she does have kids, they'll Swear that she's gonna change her mind and want at Least One More.
  • If a woman is in her late 20s to mid 30s - and there are health reasosn to avoid pregnancy - they'll tell her to go on the pill, or to look for other options, Just In Case.

Doctors, in the long run, will come up with any excuse they can to avoid doing a voluntary tubal for as long as possible.
 
I was 21 when my oldest was born with her severe handicapps.  I asked for a tubal at that point, after a geneticist let us know that the chances of me having a healthy child were slim - and would grow slimmer if I happened to get pregnant with one that had further problems.  The docs refused to give me a tubal because I was So Young - and Obviously would change my mind about Wanting another one.  I went back on the pill - and condom/spermacide use.  And over the course of the next 11 years, I got pregnant (despite attempts to prevent it) 6 more times - all of which miscarried due to similar problems - and each time I asked for a tubal so I wouldn't have to risk going through it again.  I got the same claptrap every time.  "You're so YOUNG though, you don't Really know what you want.  Next time the fetus might be healthy enough to Survive."  5 Times I heard that.  After the 6th one the story of the docs changed.  "You've had so many miscarriages that you'll never be able to carry to term, so there's no need to bother - you'll just miscarry anyway if birth control happens to fail."  When I got pregnant with the 10 yr old - I expected to miscarry, like I had always done, like the doctors kept telling me was inevitable due to scar tissue - and when it didn't happen, I prepared myself to abort, if in-utero testing showed that this one was gonna have the same kind of problems.
 
I never Wanted to have a second child.  Raising one that's handicapped drains you - physically, emotionally, financially.  But apparantly that meant exactly Squat to the healthcare professionals they were just positive that I would miraculously change my mind.  I didn't.  I still haven't.  But thankfully, after the second one was finally born, while I was 32, they were more willing to listen to reason.



SinLee -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 11:27:48 AM)

a few months of pain and inconvenience...  and then make a job out of it???

i'm sorry, i really have no response to that... i just needed to state my awestruck incredulity at reading it.

i love that men that will never have to decide this on their own (note: i said "on their own," as in not part of a joint decision) feel compelled to look down on how women decide. they will only ever take partial responsibility at most, due to the nature of the situation.



SweetNika -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 11:31:02 AM)

When I was 17, I was married and pregnant with my oldest daughter. I delivered her early and she died moments after birth. A year later I was on birth control, had 1 ovary, and used a condom and got pregnant again. This time I fought tooth and nail to prolong my pregnancy as much as possible, I was on bed rest for almost 4 months and still had to get shots to stop my labor several times. My daughter was born premature this time I was blessed. I begged my OBGYN to do a tubal ligation. He refused, not because he didn’t want to or because he didn’t think it was best for me but because in California you must be 21 to have the procedure done. At the age of 21 I got pregnant with my son and found myself on bed rest for 8 months. The day I delivered him I begged my doctor to pre-form the tubal. Everyone including his staff tried to talk me out of it, said I was to young and I might change my mind or regret it. He told them to be quite because it was me, my children unborn or otherwise who had to pay the price ultimately not them. He preformed the procedure and I love him to this day for it. That doesn’t mean I don’t take other precautions such as condoms but the reality is pregnancy and it's complications for me are no longer my main concern.



christine1 -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 11:40:43 AM)

i wonder if the reason so many docs don't want to perform tubal ligations is because they are afraid of the possibility of being sued years down the road by a woman who does change her mind?  i really have no idea, i'm just trying to figure out why they wouldn't do one when asked.



Alumbrado -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 12:02:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: corsetgirl

I am also aware that some drug stores would not sell birth control medications because of their views on the "morality" of the female, this is also very wrong because I am on it but for other health reasons.


....while i consider the idea that birth control is a form of abortion is a wholly reprehensible argument, i do take issue with the small quote above. For the same reason that no doctor ought to be forced to perform an abortion, so no pharmacist should be forced to sell something they find morally wrong. i am absolutely not suggesting that such pharmacists are correct, in fact, i think they're wrong, but if it is a genuine belief it ought to be respected.


All genuine beliefs should be respected? 

Or just the one that a woman who is taking birth control for medical reasons that have nothing to do with pregnancy, or who is pregnant because of rape, or in a situation where a pregnancy may kill her, should just be told 'tough shit' because that's the 'moral' thing to do?

Any pharmacist who has actually taken the tests and the coursework to earn their license knows damn well that many drugs (including contraceptive ones) have multiple uses, and that there is no requirement for any physician to put 'why' on the prescription.

Ignoring that while claiming a higher moral ground, is de facto being an apologist for the 'women are breeders', pro-rapist crowd.



philosophy -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 12:12:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado


All genuine beliefs should be respected? 


...subject to the old adage about where yours and mine rights begin...... 

quote:

Or just the one that a woman who is taking birth control for medical reasons that have nothing to do with pregnancy, or who is pregnant because of rape, or in a situation where a pregnancy may kill her, should just be told 'tough shit' because that's the 'moral' thing to do?


.....a small thought experiment for you here. Let's assume that, instead of a Doctor or a Pharmacist, it's a Minister or a Reverend, saying just that to an expectent mother. Much as i disagree with such a statement, much as i personally believe it is based on false assumptions, such a person has a right to their opinion......and a whole bunch of constitutional law protecting their right to say it.
You appear to be making the assumption that medical personnel have no right to hold and express their spiritual beliefs.
Now, i also make an assumption......it's the assumption that for every Doctor or Pharmacist who thinks like that, there's another who doesn't. Another Doctor or Pharmacist who wont make such judgements. i further assume that the expectent Mother has the ability to go to them instead.

quote:

Any pharmacist who has actually taken the tests and the coursework to earn their license knows damn well that many drugs (including contraceptive ones) have multiple uses, and that there is no requirement for any physician to put 'why' on the prescription.


.....true, more or less.

quote:

Ignoring that while claiming a higher moral ground, is de facto being an apologist for the 'women are breeders', pro-rapist crowd.



...whoa......now you seem to have taken a few million logical steps in one there. Care to be a bit more precise about why defending the rights of people to hold and express religious beliefs is tantamount to being pro-rapist?



SweetNika -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 12:16:01 PM)

I personally don't see how a doctor can be sued for preforming a procedur their patienct not only requests but demands UNLESS they screwed up the procedure.



uninterested5 -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 12:19:49 PM)

The same reason ambulance companies still get sued after a patient who doesn't want to go to the hospital and signs a Refusal of Care form has a heart attack: because people are fucking irresponsible.



Alumbrado -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 12:22:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado


All genuine beliefs should be respected? 


...subject to the old adage about where yours and mine rights begin...... 

quote:

Or just the one that a woman who is taking birth control for medical reasons that have nothing to do with pregnancy, or who is pregnant because of rape, or in a situation where a pregnancy may kill her, should just be told 'tough shit' because that's the 'moral' thing to do?


.....a small thought experiment for you here. Let's assume that, instead of a Doctor or a Pharmacist, it's a Minister or a Reverend, saying just that to an expectent mother. Much as i disagree with such a statement, much as i personally believe it is based on false assumptions, such a person has a right to their opinion......and a whole bunch of constitutional law protecting their right to say it.
You appear to be making the assumption that medical personnel have no right to hold and express their spiritual beliefs.
Now, i also make an assumption......it's the assumption that for every Doctor or Pharmacist who thinks like that, there's another who doesn't. Another Doctor or Pharmacist who wont make such judgements. i further assume that the expectent Mother has the ability to go to them instead.

quote:

Any pharmacist who has actually taken the tests and the coursework to earn their license knows damn well that many drugs (including contraceptive ones) have multiple uses, and that there is no requirement for any physician to put 'why' on the prescription.


.....true, more or less.

quote:

Ignoring that while claiming a higher moral ground, is de facto being an apologist for the 'women are breeders', pro-rapist crowd.



...whoa......now you seem to have taken a few million logical steps in one there. Care to be a bit more precise about why defending the rights of people to hold and express religious beliefs is tantamount to being pro-rapist?



Oh, so moving the goal posts from 'moral' belief to 'religious' ones makes it OK? 

And exactly what religious scripture says that if a woman needs a medicine for a medical condition other than pregnancy, that it is a sin to let her have it?



philosophy -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 12:31:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Oh, so moving the goal posts from 'moral' belief to 'religious' ones makes it OK? 


....i'm not moving any goalposts. Moral beliefs do not have to stem from religious ones, but can do so. Therefore, we're not talking about moving the goal posts, instead i'm proposing a more complex model, goalposts within goalposts if you will.
Furthermore, i have been at pains to point out that i don't agree with the sort of moral/religious/ethical/dogmatic stance we're discussing. All i've tried to defend is the rights of people to have such stances.

quote:

And exactly what religious scripture says that if a woman needs a medicine for a medical condition other than pregnancy, that it is a sin to let her have it?


......i have no idea not being an expert of religious scripture. The point is that it's not up to me. If someone has a belief, then i have no right to define the parameters for that. It's not my belief. i can comment on actions arising from such a belief, but the belief itself is nothing to do with me. If someone thinks it a sin to sit on a three legged stool, then no amount of my approval or disapproval is relevant.

Go back, wipe the flecks of foam from around your mouth and re-read my last post. In particular read the bit where i spoke of finding Doctors and Pharmacists who don't hold such beliefs.
Then tell me again, this time using logic, why according to you i'm pro-rapist.



Alumbrado -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 1:01:02 PM)

Tap dancing around the question isn't the same as defending it.

In specific answer to the person who said that they were taking medication for a condition other than pregnancy, you branded the refusal to give her such medication under those circumstance a moral belief that had to be respected because it was 'genuine'.

You haven't been able to explain how it is genuine other than falliing into your usual pattern of debate tactics and ad homs when questioned on your blanket assertions.

Even admitting the fact that any licensed pharmacist knows that there are non-pregnancy reasons for needing such medicine, it is still genuine and moral, and must be respected, according to you.

That position is consistent with the blind faith and refusal to apply logic of the extremes of this debate, which extremes certainly includes the 'genuine' beliefs that women who get raped are at fault, and have no right to deprive the rapist of his rights to fatherhood.



christine1 -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 1:06:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetNika

I personally don't see how a doctor can be sued for preforming a procedur their patienct not only requests but demands UNLESS they screwed up the procedure.


because there are lots of people out there like the woman that sued mcdonalds for their coffee burning her.  she ordered the coffee and knew it would be hot but she still sued and won. 



Alumbrado -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 1:37:37 PM)

And yet again....

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm


And while we are at it, tubal ligation is reversible...



SweetNika -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 2:00:50 PM)

Reversing it is considered an elective surgery by many insurance companies which means they don't pay for it.
 
Edited because I can't type today.



philosophy -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 2:10:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Tap dancing around the question isn't the same as defending it.

In specific answer to the person who said that they were taking medication for a condition other than pregnancy, you branded the refusal to give her such medication under those circumstance a moral belief that had to be respected because it was 'genuine'.


(my italics) the post i replied to may have been from a person who said that......but not in the post i replied to. What i replied to was the idea of a pharmacist effectively refusing to hand out contraception.

quote:

You haven't been able to explain how it is genuine other than falliing into your usual pattern of debate tactics and ad homs when questioned on your blanket assertions.


....without interviewing the individual concerned how could i? Instead i have spoken of how such beliefs can be genuine, and ought ot be treated as such in lieu of other evidence. As for ad homs, it was you that accused me of being pro-rapist. You don't get much more ad hom than that. Try getting the plank out of your own eye etc......

quote:

Even admitting the fact that any licensed pharmacist knows that there are non-pregnancy reasons for needing such medicine, it is still genuine and moral, and must be respected, according to you.


....yup, sorry about that, but if someone actually does have a weird belief and it isn't against the law then i'll defend their right to it. As the old adage has it, i may not agree with your views but i'll fight to the death for your right to have them.

quote:

That position is consistent with the blind faith and refusal to apply logic of the extremes of this debate, which extremes certainly includes the 'genuine' beliefs that women who get raped are at fault, and have no right to deprive the rapist of his rights to fatherhood.


....so, your logic runs thus. My viewpoint is characterised by you as extreme. Extremes include pro-rape, therefore i'm pro-rape.

Quite frankly that is a pathetic exercise in sophistry.

Your posts to me in this thread have been deeply hypocritical. You indulge in ad hom attacks and when i defend myself you accuse me of ad hom attacks. You fail to read posts clearly then accuse others of muddy thinking.
You can do much better than this. It is not your finest hour.



kittinSol -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 2:46:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Any pharmacist who has actually taken the tests and the coursework to earn their license knows damn well that many drugs (including contraceptive ones) have multiple uses, and that there is no requirement for any physician to put 'why' on the prescription.

Ignoring that while claiming a higher moral ground, is de facto being an apologist for the 'women are breeders', pro-rapist crowd.



Thank you for making this crucially important point.



Alumbrado -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 3:57:04 PM)

quote:

the post i replied to may have been from a person who said that......but not in the post i replied to. What i replied to was the idea of a pharmacist effectively refusing to hand out contraception.



Now you are just outright in denial.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2024062

quote:

ORIGINAL: corsetgirl

I am also aware that some drug stores would not sell birth control medications because of their views on the "morality" of the female, this is also very wrong because I am on it but for other health reasons.



....while i consider the idea that birth control is a form of abortion is a wholly reprehensible argument, i do take
issue with the small quote above. For the same reason that no doctor ought to be forced to perform an abortion, so no pharmacist should be forced to sell something they find morally wrong. i am absolutely not suggesting that such pharmacists are correct, in fact, i think they're wrong, but if it is a genuine belief it ought to be respected.
*************************************************************************************





quote:

My viewpoint is characterised by you as extreme. Extremes include pro-rape, therefore i'm pro-rape. 



You are simply making up more untruths again.  I never said you were pro-rape, I said that the pharmacists who ignore their training in order to deny someone a medicine for non-pregnancy issues, are acting in a manner that supports the agenda of those who blame women for their own fates after rape.  Are you now claiming to personally be one of those pharmacists?


http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2024293


Any pharmacist who has actually taken the tests and the coursework to earn their license knows damn well that many drugs (including contraceptive ones) have multiple uses, and that there is no requirement for any physician to put 'why' on the prescription.

Ignoring that while claiming a higher moral ground, is de facto being an apologist for the 'women are breeders', pro-rapist crowd.
*********************************************************************************



quote:

Quite frankly that is a pathetic exercise in sophistry.

Your posts to me in this thread have been deeply hypocritical. You indulge in ad hom attacks and when i defend myself you accuse me of ad hom attacks. You fail to read posts clearly then accuse others of muddy thinking.
You can do much better than this. It is not your finest hour.



See above.  Why should I care what you assert about morals, hypocrisy, or anything else after you've been caught making stuff up as in the above cases?



corsetgirl -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 3:59:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicalBoredom

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: corsetgirl

I am also aware that some drug stores would not sell birth control medications because of their views on the "morality" of the female, this is also very wrong because I am on it but for other health reasons.


....while i consider the idea that birth control is a form of abortion is a wholly reprehensible argument, i do take issue with the small quote above. For the same reason that no doctor ought to be forced to perform an abortion, so no pharmacist should be forced to sell something they find morally wrong. i am absolutely not suggesting that such pharmacists are correct, in fact, i think they're wrong, but if it is a genuine belief it ought to be respected.


Exactly what I was saying -- freedom to choose and live up to your beliefs is freedom to choose and live up to your beliefs no matter which side of the coin you are on.



Okay, you have your prescription filled by the doctor for birth control, you go to your local pharmacy and they denied you because in their opinion, it was morally wrong to sell you this medication.  I have read a articles that this is happening in some parts of the U.S.  I have never had that happened to me before but this is some food for thought. 

Personal opinion aside, I feel that when you set out to do the work that the physician recommends and is an advocate of the patient, as long as this is not harming the patient, then it should be that patient's choice to have the birth control.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875