Bring it on, Beeeyatch. I know all about tubals - my wife, my mother, and several close friends have them. A properly-performed cauterization tubal has a less than 1/10th of 1% chance of failure, which I believe is significantly lower than the pill’s failure rate. I will concede that I was unaware of your age, which of course factors heavily in a doctor’s decision not to sterilize you. For that, I feel sorry, because I realize it is what you truly want. Regardless, the level of venom that you hurl in the direction of the unborn (I refrain from using any other term, because unborn is the most neutral term out there that I can think of, and would apply to wanted or unwanted pregnancies) is unprecendented in my experience. You don’t merely not desire a pregnancy, it appears you actually loathe the concept and everything to do with it but the fucking part. Thus, my suggestion that you remove everything that would allow anything but the fucking. I’m sorry the doctors won’t do it - and I’m sorry for any unexpected “consequences” of your fucking that will have to bear the brunt of your ire.
Is that true?
Are doctors really that adamant about not doing tubal ligation or hysterectomy on women under 35 and/or without children?
You can have a whole goddamned sex change, but you can’t just decide that you never want to be pregnant?
That is just fucked up. It should be an on-demand procedure, as long as the doctor concludes that it carries no significant immediate health risks for the person undergoing the surgery.
I guess they’d prefer you to keep taking the pill. That way, the pharmaceutical companies continue to make a profit, and you can continue to live with the risks of long-term contraceptive pill use.
Abortions at six months are rare. They’re only done when the woman’s life/health is at stake.
Nice try.
A two month old fetus should NOT have more rights than I do.
So fucking what? That’s her right. Since when are women obliged to have some desire for pregnancy to go along with a desire for sex? I wasn’t aware of this rule.
steps up meekly
The way I see it: Once the anti-abortion crowd can figure out a way to rid the world of hunger, disease, and everything else that kills already-born children every day, and when they find families for the countless already-born children who call an orphanage their home, then they can start looking out for the zygotes. Save the children my ass.
prepares for backlash
No, it isn’t. I’m sorry, but human beings don’t treat life as if it were “precious” or “worth protecting” or “a god given right” except when it comes to passing laws against a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. We kill and maim and destroy life with abandon. Abortion laws aren’t about religious belief or sanctity of life. If they were, it’d be simple. You cannot make or enforce a law based on religious belief. Period. It’s about control. It always was, it always will be. A woman’s right to control her own reproduction, and those who would take it away.
You’re a fully grown functioning person. Physically, anyway. While I have no right to kill you, you in turn have no right to force me to cause my body to go through severe hormonal and physical changes, interrupt my life, and change my plans just because of a belief that you subscribe to and I do not. IOW; you have no control over me. You have control over you. You don’t want an abortion? Excellent. Don’t get one. But you have no right to stop anyone else from doing so.
I find it offensive and disgusting that an independent woman (catsix in this case) who is aware of her own feelings and has made her decision, knows she will not change her mind, is not able to obtain the medical care she requires to allow her the peace of mind she needs. I had to get 5 separate consults supporting my decision to get a hysterectomy, and I live in California and have two children! Plus I had a serious medical condition which necessitated that hysterectomy. If that doesn’t tell you it’s about control I don’t know what will.
catsix is wrong, dead wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Only in your opinion. And it isn’t your opinion that matters. I realize you don’t want to accept it, but it’s true. Your opinion has no bearing on the right to change any life but your own.
This will be my only post to this thread. I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind; we’ve discussed it dozens of times, we’ll discuss it dozens more. But the rhetoric thrown around in this thread is absurd.
If the baby/fetus is [legally] a human, it doesn’t really matter whether it’s 6 months or some other arbitrary number to illustrate the point.
There is no qualitative difference between:
and;
bolding mine.
A fetus doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have more rights than you.
*
But neither should either of you be allowed to kill the other.*
I’m with Spongemom. I’m passionately pro-choice, but I find it interesting that the same people who would deny a woman’s right to abortion are the same ones who are willing to cut social and education programs to care for the babies they’ve “saved”. I guess it’s a matter of quantity over quality.
Robin
But didn’t you know? Once they’re born, they have to learn personal responsibility.
Oh, silly me. :rolleyes:
Robin
A fetus != baby
Either way, you do NOT have the right to turn MY body into a host site for someone else. You do NOT have the right-no one does-to endanger my health and well-being, for someone else.
Got that?
And, yes, I know mhendo’s reply was sarcasm. The rolleyes was intended for our lovely government.
As far as I know, there is no abortion at 8 or 9 months-at that point, the doctor would just induce labor or perform an early c-section.
But you knew that-right?
Involuntary servitude?
the raindog, you keep bringing up the right to privacy as though it’s what I’m addressing. It’s not. It’s what Roe is based on, so if you want to argue the validity of Roe, it’s a useful concept. I’m not arguing the validity of Roe at this particular moment, though.
What I’m saying is that when you grant a fetus the right to exploit my body against my will, you grant it greater rights than mine. Do I have the right to take one of your kidneys if I need it? You’ve got two, you’ll live. Sure, it would be inconvenient. Traumatic, even. But what right do you have to refuse it to me, if without it I will die?
Nonsense. The central question is still the same:
When does Life begin?
I have little to do with either camp—I am not part of the right to life movement , and do not speak in rhetoric. Further, the notion that abortion is exclusively a religious issue is misguided at best, disengenuous at worst.
And you may do your best to throw out code words like"control", “slavery”, “oppression” but they don’t hold up to scrutiny. They’re highly perishable.
The question of viability is silly on it’s face. If everyone had to go through a ‘viability’ test to determine their right to be alive, we’d eliminate ¼ of the population. We’d be turning nursing homes into Motel 6’s.
The question remains the same: When does Life begin?
If that’s a child, I’ll gladly suffer the charge of “sexual oppressor”, “control freak” or “slave master” exposing the tradegy that so many people are willing to kill children because they may ‘interrupt their lives’ or ‘change their plans.’
I couldn’t agree more.
YOU would. I wouldn’t. You don’t speak for me.
And it’s more than just “interupt my life.” I am on meds and if I were to get pregnant, I couldn’t take those medications and deliver safely. I’d have to quit cold turkey, which could have devastating consequences for me. Add in the chance of post-partum depression, and there’s a good chance it would destroy me.
If I ever plan on getting pregnant, I’d have to do that-in advance, ease off the meds I’m on, and find one that’s safe to take while pregnant. But I’d still be risking pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, post-partum depression, etc.
If life begins at conception, tell me, do you celebrate your birthday, or your conception day? Do you age yourself + 9 months just to be on the safe side?
Put yourself in slavery, but don’t presume to do the same thing to me.
Not if **catsix **were making the rules. Did you read her reply?
People like her are just as blindly dogmatic as the anti-abortion crowd. That was the point of my asing her that question. And I highly doubt any doctor would perfrom an “early c-section” just because a woman no longer wanted to be pregnant even if it was legal to do so.
FYI - catsix and I held an off-board discussion…we have each retracted our personal statements about each other.
Well, in that case, I do disagree with her. Any woman who’d be so stupid as to wait 8 months in to get an abortion doesn’t deserve that right.
But I do support first trimester abortion rights. Absolutely. I may not always think the person getting one is right, or I may not have one myself (I honestly do not know what I would do), but I want that right to be available.