RE: Birth control = abortion? (Full Version)

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



Message


hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 4:04:42 PM)

quick responce here
 
Frankly, if the Pharmasists - who are NOT doctors - find it so f'ing Morally Reprehensible to do their JOB - they should FIND ANOTHER JOB.
 
They aren't trained and paid to make Decisions Of Such Nature - they're Paid And Trained To Read Chemical Lables and Hand Over What The Doctor Prescribed.  End of discussion.  They don't want to do that? Get the fuck out of the profession where THAT IS THE JOB.




Vendaval -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 4:11:34 PM)

Yes, if you are a female under the age of 30 it is almost impossible.  Doctors and medical staff will frequently argue against the surgery even if the woman has sound medical and genetic reasons for the surgery.  Some types of tubal ligation are easier to reverse and if the ovaries and uterus are still intact and functional in vitro fertilization is the other choice.


quote:

ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach
What most people fail to realize is that doctors are Extremely reluctant to do a Tubal Ligation in many cases.




thornhappy -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 4:16:43 PM)

Yep, add another voice of experience here.  I've never wanted children, and asked for a tubal ligation when I was 26 (couldn't take bcp and wanted something more reliable than barrier methods) and got a flat refusal from the OB/GYN.  "The regret rate is too high" is what I was told.

thornhappy




Alumbrado -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 4:17:04 PM)

Impossible?

Worldwide, female sterilization is used by 33% of married women using contraception, making it the most common contraceptive method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubal_ligation#Prevalence
http://www.prb.org/pdf08/fpds08.pdf

Also

Successful repair of the fallopian tubes is now possible in 98% of women who have had a tubal ligation, regardless of the type of sterilization procedure.




camille65 -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 4:59:10 PM)

Heh world wide doesn't mean USA, or covered by health care.

Doctors do everything possible to discourage women of child bearing years from undergoing this procedure in the US.




Alumbrado -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 5:14:56 PM)

I'm not doubting individual anecdotes, I'm looking for quantitative data that this is the case in the US. I know females who have had the process in the US, for a variety of reasons.




Vendaval -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 5:15:22 PM)

If you are an unmarried, single woman under the age of 30 most doctors in the US will try to talk you out of the procedure.  And the majority of people around you will react very negatively.  You will be accused of not liking or even hating unmentionables, of being unfeminine, of not knowing your own mind and body, being selfish, of having the wrong priorities, that no decent man will ever want you.  Never mind that you may have severe adverse reactions to the Pill or any other hormone based birth control and be allergic to the only spermicide on the US market.
 
(Alumbrado, the first link you site, scroll down to Reference #7.)
 
"Are You Kidding?"
 
"Tubal ligation procedures denied to young women who don’t want children"

By Bonnie Zylbergold

"For now (at least) mama Green needn’t worry; though she’s tried, and will try again, Green has thus far been denied any permanent form of birth control, specifically tubal ligation.

Tubal ligation—known more commonly as “getting your tubes tied,”—involves closing the fallopian tubes so that the egg cannot travel from the ovary to the uterus, where, normally, a fertilized egg would develop into a fetus.

“[Planned Parenthood of Boston**] said it was much too permanent and weren’t going to give it to me, plus my insurance wasn’t going to cover it,” recalls Green. What’s more, according to Green, “It was all and only about my age.” She was twenty-two at the time.

Green’s experience is not that unusual. Though no actual laws have ever been put into place, most OBGYNs refuse to provide women under thirty with permanent forms of contraception. Dr. Daniel Wiener, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at McGill University in Montreal, is one such doctor.

With thirty plus years of medical practice, Dr. Wiener finds no good reason for putting otherwise healthy patients in surgery: for one, there are anesthetic risks involved. Plus, tubal ligations are considered elective surgeries (assuming the patient can use other, less invasive forms of birth control). More pressing, still, is the fear that a patient may one day change her mind. Sound familiar?

“Twenty-one to thirty, that’s a big decade. A huge decade,” says Dr. Wiener. “A woman who is twenty-five and says, ‘That’s it, I’ve made my choice,’ I would probably just have to say, ‘You’re making a twenty-five year old choice. You sure that’s going to be a thirty-eight or thirty-nine year old choice?’”

In other words, come back when you’re older."

http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/MagArticle.cfm?&Article=759




camille65 -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 5:18:11 PM)

http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/tubalig.htm

"Young women with no children may have difficulty finding a surgeon to perform the procedure"

First link I got on Google.




Alumbrado -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 5:25:50 PM)

Which doesn't explain doctors universally refusing to perform it for fear of lawsuits..it has a 98% success rate for reversal, that isn't 'much too permanent' it is minimally invasive, so the 'too dangerous' argument doesn't wash......something isn't adding up, since I don't see similar refusal for vasectomies. 




Vendaval -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 5:28:05 PM)

I forgot to mention that several men have told me about the same situation in regards to vasectomies.  (Bear in mind that this is second hand information though.)
 
If a man is single, unmarried, no children and under the age of 30, he will also have trouble finding a doctor in the US to perform the procedure.
 
(I have errands to run, will be back on later this evening.)




camille65 -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 5:35:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Which doesn't explain doctors universally refusing to perform it for fear of lawsuits..it has a 98% success rate for reversal, that isn't 'much too permanent' it is minimally invasive, so the 'too dangerous' argument doesn't wash......something isn't adding up, since I don't see similar refusal for vasectomies. 


You are correct in saying it doesn't add up, but nevertheless it is true.

Womens health care just isn't the same as it is for men. Women are more likely to be referred for psychological help where men are more likely to get a prescription for the same thing.. headaches.

Personally I was told for years that my Lupus, TMJD and Fibro were all because I 'am a nervous person and could benefit from therapy' while I had to battle those doctors to run blood tests. It took over a decade.

I asked about sterilization when I hit 30, had been married for 8 years.
They said to bring my husband in.. so they could be sure he didn't want children! They did all they could do discourage me, so we got my ex snipped. His appointment was made over the phone to a doctor he'd never been too but there was no questioning his ability to gauge if he did or did not want to reproduce.

There is a huge double standard Alumbrado and you are an intelligent person, so it surprises me that you've never noticed it.




Racquelle -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 5:55:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: uninterested5

I know abortion exists and happens and as an institution isn't going anywhere, but at the very least cut the bullshit and stop pretending it's some kind of inalienable "choice." A baby if just as dependent if not moreso after it's born. Why use the empty-headed, convoluted reasoning that it is your "right" as a woman to be a selfish whore and refuse to be answerable to nature, your higher morality, or the repercussions of your actions just because you think you can Johnnie Cochran some people on the internet into agreeing with you to spread the responsibility around? Please, by that rationale you could murder your kid at any point during like the next decade and a half for still being a "parasite."

Realistically, if you want to murder your kid before it's born because it's too inconvenient for you to raise and you want to play God and decide it's better off dead than being adopted or in foster care, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. If you murder the guy at Taco Bell because he took too long getting your food, I really don't care about that either. So murder your unborn child if you want, just never lose sight of the reason why: Because it was too inconvenient for you to endure a few months of pregnancy.

Those tools who respond and say "BUT NUITERSTED6 U IDOIT THAR R 2 MENY KIDS IN FAWSTER KARE!" If that's what you believe and how you think, try heading down to the orphanage or a shelter and explaining to all those children why their parents are insensitive for not having the foresight to preemptively decide they'd be better off dead.
 
I hope you think about it and relive it every night of your life.
  Yuck.

Birth control and abortion isn't just about the inconvenience of pregnancy.  This world is already well-enough peopled with those we are unprepared to care for and love from infancy to death.

My guess is you see killing someone in self-defense as a right.  Abortion can rightly be seen as a action of self-defense.  A mugger or burglar may pose little permanent threat to you - just moments of inconvenience replacing material goods and having locks fixed.  A child alters forever the lives of its parents - materially, emotionally - forever.  This isn't a trivial inconvenience...except, perhaps, for a man who evades responsibility after the deed is done.




hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 6:08:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: camille65
Personally I was told for years that my Lupus, TMJD and Fibro were all because I 'am a nervous person and could benefit from therapy' while I had to battle those doctors to run blood tests. It took over a decade.


Gods does THAT sound all to familiar!!!  Mom faced that prior to finally being diagnosed with her Lupus and Fibro.  I faced it to an extent, but since my diganosis of Lupus came from the same doctor that mom was seeing - and who was doing family group genetic research on Lupus and related illnesses - I didn't see nearly as much of it as she did.
 
And forget blood tests, Camille - there are cases (of which my mom was one) of ANA Negative Lupus.  She never once, in the 15 years that she battled, tested ANA Positive.  Of the times they've actually been willing to run ANA tests on me, I showed up positive twice and negative once.  That's why there's such a long list of Other symptomology that they can use for the purposes of diagnosis other than Just a positive ana result.  The standing joke in the family (there were several between me and mom, due to the SLE) was that when she died, she wanted put on her tombstone "See - I TOLD You I was SICK."  And gods know she said - and I've said in the years since her death - that she was Sick and Tired of being Sick and Tired.  In both of us, the symptoms of Lupus showed up due to the Physical stresses of Pregnancy - stress makes it worse, sunlight makes it worse, eatting certain foods that can trigger things makes it worse.  Fortunately for me, mine seems to have been in regression for a couple of years - no Serious problems with the majority of the symptomology - but I still have the Butterfly most of the time, and I still have to be careful not to put myself into a situation where a major flare is going to happen.
 
Alumbrado - whether it adds up or not, is fair or not, or exists in Other countries or not - the health care system Here in the US is still extremely prejudicial against women.  We get told consistantly that we don't know anything, that we're not capable of knowing our own minds, or our own Bodies, or what we want (or DON'T want to do with them.)  
 
And just outta curiousity - while I see a LOT of males that endorse Tubal Ligation as a means of permanent birth control for Women - how many of those SAME males are willing to go get Themselves snipped as a permanent means of birth control for Themselves?  Or do they, like so many of them seem, to feel that avoiding a pregnancy is not Their problem - so any form of permanent birth control is not Their problem?




Alumbrado -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 6:18:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: camille65

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Which doesn't explain doctors universally refusing to perform it for fear of lawsuits..it has a 98% success rate for reversal, that isn't 'much too permanent' it is minimally invasive, so the 'too dangerous' argument doesn't wash......something isn't adding up, since I don't see similar refusal for vasectomies. 


You are correct in saying it doesn't add up, but nevertheless it is true.

Womens health care just isn't the same as it is for men. Women are more likely to be referred for psychological help where men are more likely to get a prescription for the same thing.. headaches.

Personally I was told for years that my Lupus, TMJD and Fibro were all because I 'am a nervous person and could benefit from therapy' while I had to battle those doctors to run blood tests. It took over a decade.

I asked about sterilization when I hit 30, had been married for 8 years.
They said to bring my husband in.. so they could be sure he didn't want children! They did all they could do discourage me, so we got my ex snipped. His appointment was made over the phone to a doctor he'd never been too but there was no questioning his ability to gauge if he did or did not want to reproduce.

There is a huge double standard Alumbrado and you are an intelligent person, so it surprises me that you've never noticed it.

Never said I didn't notice the double standard in women's health care, in fact I've posted on it before and been roundly criticized for it...thanks for ignoring that though and going right for the personal sniping.




camille65 -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 6:21:23 PM)

There was no sniping, you are reading that into it yourself. Honestly unless it is something that I am interested in, most posts/opinions don't really get linked to nicks inside my head.
I said you are intelligent and that I was surprised because of the reluctance you showed on this thread about stating that it exists, but instead asking for actual sources rather than personal stories. Thats all, honest there was no sniping.




Lucylastic -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 6:31:38 PM)

I dont know about now, but it was the same in the UK regarding tubals 20 odd years ago. I fell pregnant with my first on the pill....asked for a tubal was told you are too young, you are gonna want more kids, come back whenyou are 26 or up to three....and thats what ended up happening, I had the third and demanded one while in recovery.(All three while I was on the pill, plus a couple of miscarriages)....I was pissed and giving orders, a few weeks later I had it done, then a year later got pregnant again, however that one was ectopic, and hurt like a mofo. They removed half of my tubes on either side. Since then Ive been on the pill for about 15 years on and off because I have a lot of cysts and heavy heavy  periods. I hate the pill with a passion.
Im only half joking when I say I think that all males should be snipped at birth and able to reverse it when they feel they are ready to handle the responsibility for their children.
Lucy




corsetgirl -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/23/2008 8:35:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach

quick responce here
 
Frankly, if the Pharmasists - who are NOT doctors - find it so f'ing Morally Reprehensible to do their JOB - they should FIND ANOTHER JOB.
 
They aren't trained and paid to make Decisions Of Such Nature - they're Paid And Trained To Read Chemical Lables and Hand Over What The Doctor Prescribed.  End of discussion.  They don't want to do that? Get the fuck out of the profession where THAT IS THE JOB.


I agree with you!  [sm=thanks.gif]




philosophy -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/24/2008 7:58:05 AM)

.....yup, i'm an idiot. i missed the line at the end of the quote......even though i quoted it myself.
You can either accept my word that it was a genuine error or you can call me mendacious. Either way, my intention was to try to defend the right of people to their beliefs, no matter how wrong i thought they were, provided they were legal. End of story. Any other impression was down to my failure to read things carefully.




philosophy -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/24/2008 7:59:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach

quick responce here
 
Frankly, if the Pharmasists - who are NOT doctors - find it so f'ing Morally Reprehensible to do their JOB - they should FIND ANOTHER JOB.
 
They aren't trained and paid to make Decisions Of Such Nature - they're Paid And Trained To Read Chemical Lables and Hand Over What The Doctor Prescribed.  End of discussion.  They don't want to do that? Get the fuck out of the profession where THAT IS THE JOB.


....does the same logic apply to Doctors and abortions?




hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: Birth control = abortion? (7/24/2008 8:17:03 AM)

Abortions, with the exception of those performed due to medical necessity to save the mother's live, are typically considered an Elective procedure.  Any doctor has the right to refuse to do Elective procedures that are not something that's causing a life threatening problem - whether it's something like abortion or giving a face lift and liposuction.  There are other times when it's Recommended by the doctor in question - non-viability of the fetus, etc - that I wouldn't consider Elective.  But ya know what - a doctor that refuses to perform a procedure necessary to save the life of their Primary Patient (the Mother) because they find the Procedure to be "morally questionable" - is just as wrong as a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription that has been legitimately written because he/she finds the medication "morally questionable."
 
Pharmacists are Not doctors.  They aren't paid to tell you "it's not necessary or it's unwarrented."  The doctor already did that, or at least has that Option as the one Prescribing the Medication in question, or you wouldn't have the prescription in the First Place.  If they want to make the decision about whether it should be given - they should get a Medical Degree, which gives them the training and wherewithall to do so - not a pharmacutical degree which does NOT confer such.




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125