Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, I have always wondered....and this thread brings it back to mind...
1. Where DO pro-lifers stand on the use of Viagra or other ED drugs? - A person's use, or non-use, of these drugs is of no consequence to me. However, I see no reason why they should be paid for by insurance or Medicare.
2. Where do pro-lifers stand on interfering with conception re: IF or fertility drugs? - A person's use, or non-use, of these things is of no real consequence to me. But again, I'll say that I don't believe insurance and/or Medicare should pay. There are things in life that are optional, and forcing John Q Public (through higher taxes and/or higher premiums) to pay for optional things is wrong.
I know that lumping "pro-lifers" together is the same as asking "what do African Americans think about..." but I really am curious.
I thought that perhaps I could see some better, and hopefully, more well-reasoned responses here than in the "politics" forum".
Keep it civil please?
I fall roughly into the pro-life camp, so I guess I'll answer.
If it's very important to you, I think you should keep looking until you find a doctor willing to perform the procedure, but try and explain to anyone you go to, the reasons why and lay it out in an intelligent manner.
I do understand the problem this poses to an educated young woman who's absolutely set in her mind though, but I also know that nigh on all doctors act in what they believe to be, is our best interest. I certainly wouldn't want surgery from someone who thinks what they're doing is wrong.
I have a question for you though, with birth control being as effective as it is and so widely available in various forms, what other reasons than purely medical would there be to perform this surgery?
I'm not saying it's wrong or anything I just wonder.
You are right about the vasectomy - being easier, cheaper AND reversible.
I think we also have to give doctors a fair shake here. It is EXTREMELY high risk for a doctor to tie the tubes on a very young woman. The liability is just too high for most of them to consider it. And even though everything can be in writing, and signed, that doesn't keep them from being sued later on.
sadly, the "pro-lifers" (really, better choice of word is "anti-choicers") who do want an outright ban and seemingly vilify women who exercise their rights to choose are often the most visible and the most vocal, even if they aren't the majority. there are "pro-life" activists that won't even make exception for rapes. some would tell the OP to just stop having sex if she doesn't want to get pregnant, which is a ridiculous response. I don't disagree w/ you, but tolerant pro-lifers are less visible than the loons that picket Planned Parenthood and bash anyone who chose to get an abortion. people like the OP aren't that rare and even beyond medical reasons, there are people who don't want kids, but due to failed birth control, end up pregnant and must make hard choices. thankfully, they can make those choices if need be.
Let's also not ignore the fact that the VAST majority of abortions have nothing to do with the mother's health, rape, or anything like that. The majority of abortions are strictly birth control.
If we really want to be pro choice, we should allow every baby to be born (except in the cases noted above), wait till their 18, then ask them if they think they should have been born. If they answer no, we can put them down humanely... Why not support that?
Let's also not ignore the fact that the VAST majority of abortions have nothing to do with the mother's health, rape, or anything like that. The majority of abortions are strictly birth control.
If we really want to be pro choice, we should allow every baby to be born (except in the cases noted above), wait till their 18, then ask them if they think they should have been born. If they answer no, we can put them down humanely... Why not support that?
If that's supposed to be serious, which I don't think it is, because for the first trimester (at least) the "child" is completely dependent on the host body, and considering what a pregnancy does to a woman, and the duration of it, it should be entirely her choice whether or not she wants to terminate that pregnancy.
Re: Sterilization when there's plenty of effective birth control.
1. Cost. For a woman to take birth control regularly from the time she's 18 to the time she hits menopause is reallllly expensive. Much more so then paying for a tubal or Essure.
2. Hormones. There's three birth control methods (that I know of) that don't contain hormones. Condoms, and I wouldn't want every woman to put their reporductive status solely in the hands of a man using a condom correctly. Diaphrams, I've used one, and it was very uncomfortable. I have friend's that both loved and hated them. Paraguard IUD - but if you're body rejects that, you're out of luck.
Re: DF getting a vasectomy. I'm thankful that he's willing to do this. But there's two scenarios that crop up in my mind every once in a while...
A. He dies. And a few years later I want to move into another relationship - I'm right back at square one.
B. He decides he absolutly positively cannot live without biological children. Again, I'm right back at square one.
Re: Doctors and choosing not to perform a sterilization on an informed adult.
Truthfully, I go back and forth on this all the time. While I think they have every right to chose to run their practices how they want; I think it's extremely short sighted and in some cases very condenscending to tell a well informed adult that they won't sterilize them simply because they think they are a.) "too young" and b.) "may change their mind".
And yes, I've gotten both of the above even AFTER they've seen my medical records. They KNOW the risks pregnancy poses to me and yet they still persisted to believe I would one day change my mind.
While there are plenty of women who have changed their minds. There are also plenty of woman that never have. It's a fine line to walk really.
Re: Sterilization and major surgery.
The form of sterilization I'd opt for is Essure, which doesn't involve major surgery and in some cases is performed as an out patient procedure.
If that's supposed to be serious, which I don't think it is, because for the first trimester (at least) the "child" is completely dependent on the host body, and considering what a pregnancy does to a woman, and the duration of it, it should be entirely her choice whether or not she wants to terminate that pregnancy.
Actually, that's an extremely weak argument. A full-term, newborn baby is completely dependent on the host body as well. So too is a 6-month old, and a 12-month old.
What do you have to say about babies that are aborted, yet are still alive after they are aborted? How is that not murder?
Actually, that's an extremely weak argument. A full-term, newborn baby is completely dependent on the host body as well. So too is a 6-month old, and a 12-month old.
What do you have to say about babies that are aborted, yet are still alive after they are aborted? How is that not murder?
Considering how much you've talked numbers in this thread: How often does that happen.
If you want to keep the debate on a relatively reasonable level I think that kind of imagery is unneeded.
Almost all abortions happen well within the first trimester and there's rarely any serious complications.
As for your problems with my argument I think you forget that after birth the then child is not completely dependent on whoever gave birth to it, but completely dependent on someone, and that someone does not necessarily have to go through a pregnancy (unwanted one at that) first.
Considering how much you've talked numbers in this thread: How often does that happen.
If you want to keep the debate on a relatively reasonable level I think that kind of imagery is unneeded.
Almost all abortions happen well within the first trimester and there's rarely any serious complications.
As for your problems with my argument I think you forget that after birth the then child is not completely dependent on whoever gave birth to it, but completely dependent on someone, and that someone does not necessarily have to go through a pregnancy (unwanted one at that) first.
I think it's 100% relevant to talk about babies that survive abortion. Why do pro-choice people want to suppress information such as this? It is VERY disturbing to me - as I would assume it would be to ANYBODY - that some babies survive abortion, but are simply left to die anyway.
Now... Your "viability outside the womb" argument still falls short. The argument is that the baby could not survive outside the womb, therefore it is not a baby. But that argument is factually wrong, and a self-contradiction, isn't it?
I think it's 100% relevant to talk about babies that survive abortion. Why do pro-choice people want to suppress information such as this? It is VERY disturbing to me - as I would assume it would be to ANYBODY - that some babies survive abortion, but are simply left to die anyway.
Now... Your "viability outside the womb" argument still falls short. The argument is that the baby could not survive outside the womb, therefore it is not a baby. But that argument is factually wrong, and a self-contradiction, isn't it?
I ask again, how often do you think that happens? Then compare it to other fatal occurrences and then taken all that into account, tell me why that should sway my opinion on abortion.
And I think you need to read my post again, I did specifically say first trimester. As far as I know, the chance of survival at that point is 0%
I didn't seek to suppress anything, but you yourself have argued that the percentages of abortions due to medical reasons/rape etc. is so small it could be neglected for the sake of argument, I don't see why an extremely low number of aborted fetuses that come out living should be included either.
Basically it's such an extreme anomaly that it shouldn't be used to decide for the rest.
I ask again, how often do you think that happens? Then compare it to other fatal occurrences and then taken all that into account, tell me why that should sway my opinion on abortion.
And I think you need to read my post again, I did specifically say first trimester. As far as I know, the chance of survival at that point is 0%
I didn't seek to suppress anything, but you yourself have argued that the percentages of abortions due to medical reasons/rape etc. is so small it could be neglected for the sake of argument, I don't see why an extremely low number of aborted fetuses that come out living should be included either.
Basically it's such an extreme anomaly that it shouldn't be used to decide for the rest.
I have not said that the rape/incest issue should be neglected. The problem is that so many pro-choice people want to make it seem as though rape & incest is the NORM regarding reasons for abortion. But it simply isn't.
That said, your assertion that "babies who survive abortion" should be ignored means we should also ignore the "rape & incest" cause for abortion too, right? After all, the number is inconsequential.
Or is that not the case? Are you arguing that one should be ignored, and the other paid attention to?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
