Abortion Debate-All

Docjoe wrote:

So can we please stop with the male bashing? Although men don't have a womb to carry children, an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy can also impact the father in profound long term ways. I'm not talking about the stereotype of the deadbeat that disappears when his partner gets pregnant. I'm talking about the male partner who may also be dealing with negative impact of a child at a time of life (school, work, whatever) where he is also ill equipped to raise a child and may also be struggling with internal conflict over what terminating a pregnancy may ethically mean.

And I understand that it is not his body dealing with the health implications of a pregnancy. No, it is not equal. But can we not bash the male sex because of a few idiot politicians? And let's also not pretend that it is only men who are protesting at abortion clinics or pushing anti-abortion legislation.

Is this preemptive or something? No male bashing has occurred in this thread that I can see.

Docjoe wrote:

So can we please stop with the male bashing? Although men don't have a womb to carry children, an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy can also impact the father in profound long term ways. I'm not talking about the stereotype of the deadbeat that disappears when his partner gets pregnant. I'm talking about the male partner who may also be dealing with negative impact of a child at a time of life (school, work, whatever) where he is also ill equipped to raise a child and may also be struggling with internal conflict over what terminating a pregnancy may ethically mean.

And I understand that it is not his body dealing with the health implications of a pregnancy. No, it is not equal. But can we not bash the male sex because of a few idiot politicians? And let's also not pretend that it is only men who are protesting at abortion clinics or pushing anti-abortion legislation.

Huh? What "male bashing"?

The only time I recall anybody even using the word "male" is redjen above, when she pointed out that it was overwhelmingly male lawmakers deciding what uterus-bearers should and should not do with their body parts.

OK looking back I think I was being oversensitive to those remarks and a couple about how real the impact of abortion is if you have a uterus. I think I'm just sensitive to the issue in general.

So a friend of mine was finishing his last year of medical residency. He had a good job lined up the next year in another city. His wife of 2 years was finishing up her final year of school as a dietician. They were on the pill but managed to get pregnant anyways.

They had planned to start a family the next year after they both finished school. They were doing well financially and although the timing wasn't what they had planned, he was extremely excited to be having a baby. His wife was less so and didn't feel the time was right. She decided to abort and try to get pregnant next year. He had a really hard time with this decision and didn't agree at all. He wasn't opposed to abortion but really felt like this was killing their baby.

The term "we're pregnant" is not true. Only the woman is pregnant. The father, even in a committed relationship, is a sperm donor, biologically nothing more. It can't be his choice to force her to keep the child in her body. There is no technology that would allow transfer of the fetus to his obviously. So the fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it was aborted.

They now have 2 beautiful children and their marriage survived. He still wonders what his first child would have been like.

So I get that abortion is a woman's issue. Men don't have a uterus so can't really relate. But the issue does affect them and can leave different kinds of emotional scars.

How's it going in here? We wrapped up with the original intent of the thread or was there more you folks had in the chamber regarding the original stated topic?

Certis wrote:

How's it going in here? We wrapped up with the original intent of the thread or was there more you folks had in the chamber regarding the original stated topic?

"In the chamber"? Wnat's that mean?

The original intent of this thread was to provide a space to discuss/debate abortion without it taking over the Feminism thread. So I'd like to keep the thread open, if that's okay. For the most part I think the discussion here has been pretty interesting, and I'd hate to see if shut down just because of the last page or two.

"In the chamber" means "bullets in the gun to shoot". As in ... new ideas or thoughts.

Fair enough, play on. But everyone please understand further digressions will result in ejection from the thread and/or deleted posts. This is a difficult topic so I'm less keen on spiraling.

Yeah, I also read that as implying this was an echo chamber - though now that you've clarified I do remember that expression being used. Sometimes. By old people.

(Just kidding! I love you, really. Also, I think I'm older than you are.)

Certis wrote:

"In the chamber" means "bullets in the gun to shoot". As in ... new ideas or thoughts.

Guess I must be old, as this is how I'd read it, and didn't think it was an archaic phrase.

If we can have 220+ pages on gun control or a single presidential election in one country, then I think it's safe to say we've still still plenty to say on this topic.
I get it, it's a delicate topic, but shutting the thread down won't help move the discussion forward.
FWIW, I also read it as "echo chamber" on the first read, Certis.

Docjoe, I understand that you're speaking from the heart and that you were going from one specific example that you know of, but let me tell you that thats the exception to the rule, so to speak. From my admittedly limited example, I'd say that about 75% of the people in the OB ward were there without their partners. In L&D, it was the opposite. Very little support from their partners when they're having abortions. So we talk about destigmatizing abortions, how about we start there?
Your friend might be grieving for never will be, Docjoe, but as you put it, he's not the one who would have had to carry the child. They were still in school: what if you're put on bed rest for months because of a complication? What then? How do you finish your classes and graduate? And you only have your friend's view, but who does she feel about it? Chances are she also wonders "what if", but sometimes in life, you make tough choices.

qaraq wrote:

Flip side of the 'graying of abortion doctors': I’m training to be an OB-GYN. Providing abortions will be an essential part of my job.

From a public health perspective, the end-all objective should not be to reduce abortion rates, but instead to further empower more women to make informed reproductive choices.

This may seem like a trivial distinction, but it is the difference between an agenda that conforms women's health to socially accepted standards and an agenda that truly promotes the health of women.
There is no achievable middle ground when it comes to pregnancy. Though a woman can ultimately choose adoption over parenthood, the burden of pregnancy and childbirth and the long-lasting consequences of both are hers to shoulder alone and completely.

BINGO! I'm going to stop quoting before I copy and paste the whole thing here.

Thank you for linking that, Qaraq, and for quoting those lines, Redjen.

I'll get back to the agency of the person seeking OB care later, but for now, I'd like to react to this particular bit:

He explained that it was against his conscience not only to perform abortions but also to even refer a patient to an abortion provider.

The author refers to a rural practitioner who gave a lecture on why he wouldn't give abortions (it's was against his conscience). This truly shocked me. In France, this would be considered highly unethical. The Code of Doctors states that you are allowed to object to performing an abortion (or any procedure, really) if it goes against your beliefs. HOWEVER, you have a duty, as a medical practitioner, to provide alternatives to your patient, refer them to a colleague who can perform the procedure. It is absolutely key in ensuring that the patient is always taken care of, that the chain of patient care remains unbroken.

Now. About that last bit RedJen quoted. It is absolutely paramount that that particular message gets heard. Because it is a major issue in OB care, I've seen it here in France, I've seen it in the US, and I'm willing to bet a pretty penny that it happens in most if not all countries of the world. It stems from this perhaps well intentioned but ultimately profoundly misguided intent from medical professionals (both male and female), that they know what's best for the patient and there, there, little girl, just do as you're told. The condescending tone is often included. The stories of this kind of poor treatment by your OB... they number in the tens of thousands, if not more. A movement was started in France to increase public awareness on the matter and everyone has at least one story like this: I have a couple, my sister, my mother, my best friend, the neighbor, colleagues at work. We ALL have stories about how we raised concerns about our birth control, or how we were going to deliver, or when we needed an abortion, or when we wanted our tubes tied. Ask around you, and you'll find what I say is overwhelmingly true.

This may seem like a derail, because it's not just about abortion, but it's not. Because I'd like to put forward that the crux of the matter when it comes to abortion is that once again, it's someone else trying to tell a uterus bearer what they should do. Because, somehow, having a uterus means that people get to have an opinion about how you live your life (just ask anyone who's ever been pregnant, it's true in that case, everyone always has a myriad of good - and not so good - advice to give out).

Edit; one more quote for the road!

As I continued working with patients, I found that most abortions are not like this. Most women who have abortions — upward of 90 percent — do so within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and only about 1 percent have one after 20 weeks. Despite common stereotypes, women who have abortions are a racially diverse group, many from disadvantaged backgrounds and unstable social situations and others from relative privilege. Their reasons for choosing to end their pregnancies are varied and often complex. Many of the patients I saw were either married or in otherwise very committed relationships with their partners. Statistics tell us that more than 60 percent already have a child.
qaraq wrote:

Flip side of the 'graying of abortion doctors': I’m training to be an OB-GYN. Providing abortions will be an essential part of my job.

Not so much a flip side as a link that says the same things my links did, but I'm glad you linked that as the information and ideas are now being received well.

Certis wrote:

"In the chamber" means "bullets in the gun to shoot". As in ... new ideas or thoughts.

To be fair to Kat when I read " chamber" I thought "echo chamber" and had to reread your earlier post to get the meaning of it.

Cheeze, you linked a paper which stated that "[abortion] is not any more physically or emotionally damaging than a Pap smear for the vast majority of women who opt to undergo the procedure."
So really, I fail to see the parallel.

edit: eh, on second thought, not productive (if it's coming from me).

for the record edit: it always boils down to...semantics.

For the record: a pap smear is a physically uncomfortable thing I do every year to manage my health. It was a bit embarrassing the first time, but now causes me less angst than having my blood drawn. Not having this done was never a consideration, you have them done so you can take care of yourself.

The one time I thought I might have to make the decision of what to do in the event I was pregnant, I was having migraines and full blown panic attacks over the possibility of having to decide whether or not I could/should have a child at that time. I thank my lucky stars that I didn't have to make that choice.

These two events don't even belong in the same realm of comparison.

Bonus TMI: a regular mammogram really does feel like they squished your boob by closing a refrigerator door on it and then holding it shut.

Eleima wrote:

I'll get back to the agency of the person seeking OB care later, but for now, I'd like to react to this particular bit:

He explained that it was against his conscience not only to perform abortions but also to even refer a patient to an abortion provider.

The author refers to a rural practitioner who gave a lecture on why he wouldn't give abortions (it's was against his conscience). This truly shocked me. In France, this would be considered highly unethical. The Code of Doctors states that you are allowed to object to performing an abortion (or any procedure, really) if it goes against your beliefs. HOWEVER, you have a duty, as a medical practitioner, to provide alternatives to your patient, refer them to a colleague who can perform the procedure. It is absolutely key in ensuring that the patient is always taken care of, that the chain of patient care remains unbroken.

I believe all of the major medical associations in the United States would agree with that. However...

In at least some states the members of the State Medical Board are political appointees. (I don't know how they all work.)

So... yeah, that probably tells you all you need to know about why some state medical boards might end up with people who'll throw medical ethics out in favor of rejecting abortion, and why in some places physicians might feel safe acting that way.

Remember we also have bishops dictating hospital policy...
Edit: citation http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...

sometimesdee wrote:

Remember we also have bishops dictating hospital policy...
Edit: citation http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-acti...

That's OK. Catholic hospitals only make up ten of the 25 largest largest health-care networks in the U.S. ...

EDIT

Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed a bill into law Thursday making Indiana the second state to ban abortions because of fetal genetic abnormalities such as Down syndrome.
...
In addition to banning abortions due to fetal genetic abnormalities, the law will prohibit abortions done because of a fetus's race, sex or ancestry and mandates that the only way to dispose of an aborted fetus is through burial or cremation.

The bill has been criticized by a national group of gynecologists and several female Republican members of the GOP-dominated Indiana Legislature, who say it goes too far in telling women what they can and can't do.

"We know that you're going to be forcing woman and families to suffer emotionally because they're going to be force to carry pregnancies that are not viable," said Kate Connors, director of communications for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which recently wrote to Pence urging him to defeat the bill. "We've been hoping that the resounding chorus of voices would hit home. It obviously did not."

Indiana has exactly one state program designed to help families of children who have serious, chronic medical conditions: Children’s Special Healthcare Services. Indiana has also slashed the budget of said service, along with pretty much all healthcare and social services spending in recent years. The Children's Special Healthcare Services has seen the number of families it can help fall from 8,500 to only 5,000 because of those budget cuts.

So there will be more children born with serious, chronic medical conditions and the state has dramatically cut any funding to deal with just such a thing.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
qaraq wrote:

Flip side of the 'graying of abortion doctors': I’m training to be an OB-GYN. Providing abortions will be an essential part of my job.

Not so much a flip side as a link that says the same things my links did, but I'm glad you linked that as the information and ideas are now being received well.

One thing that stuck with me from your link was that the older doctors remembered what it was like to treat women who'd tried to self-induce abortions. Anyone trying to make abortion less available needs to understand that that horror is going to be one of the unintended consequences.

Sad but not surprising. Governor Scott signs Florida TRAP laws.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/poli...

These TRAP laws are so cruel. Either make abortion legal or don't. But don't play games and set limits that erode access to other life-saving services as a result, then pat yourself on the back about it. UGH.

They can't completely roll back Roe v. Wade, so they're trying to do de facto bans while avoiding running afoul of de jure.

Anti-Abortion Laws Are Having a Dangerous, Chilling Effect on Zika Research

The Article wrote:

While the targeting of fetal tissue research is bound to have long-term effects, Florida’s newly signed anti-abortion laws might be particularly chilling. Earlier this month, Governor Rick Scott signed a Texas-style omnibus bill that, among many things, criminalizes the donation of fetal tissue. By all estimates, Florida is likely to be one of the hardest hit by Zika (a recent study from PLOS Current: Outbreaks indicated that Miami and Southern Florida carries the highest risk for a Zika outbreak), but Florida’s new law doesn’t have an exception for Zika-infected fetuses. Meaning that Florida’s regressive laws could profoundly impact Zika research.

“With the horrors of the Zika virus and its almost certain spread to Florida, to me it’s unfathomable that anyone there would want to restrict this research,” dean of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health told Politico.

Utah; Governor signs abortion anesthesia bill

sigh taking a fairly safe procedure and adding the layer of an expensive* high risk procedure needing the extra booking of a specific specialist, etc , ffs. "Legal except..." is rather ridiculous in this situation.

*I assume an anesthesiologist is expensive in the US, and that insurance companies for those who have insurance may not cover it for this "elective" procedure.

So now in Utah, to have an abortion at 20 weeks or later, the womb bearer is required to be given a local anesthetic, just in case the fetus might feel pain.

The proposal is based on the disputed premise that a fetus can feel pain at that point.

Seriously? Do people in Utah not know how local anesthetics work? If they really wanted to prevent the fetus from feeling any pain, shouldn't they be required to give the anesthetic to the fetus?

I suppose that a womb bearer who is having an abortion because the fetus has died is also now required to be given a local anesthetic to prevent the no longer living fetus from feeling pain. ARGHH!

RedJen wrote:

I suppose that a womb bearer who is having an abortion because the fetus has died is also now required to be given a local anesthetic to prevent the no longer living fetus from feeling pain. ARGHH!

The law also has loopholes for women whose life is at risk or if the fetus won't survive outside the womb. Those abortions don't require anesthetic...because clearly those fetuses can't feel pain like the other fetuses.

Paging Doctor Larry... Seriously, I'd love to hear what an anesthesiologist has to say...

I have mentioned this before, but there was a period when my wife and I were trying to have children (we are now past the age where such things are feasible or responsible). We had one pregnancy and were very excited about the possibility of becoming parents even at an age we thought would be difficult. That lasted nearly 4 months before an ultrasound revealed that she had miscarried, but the pregnancy was continuing. Her OB explained that this sort of thing happens and a spontaneous miscarriage would probably happen shortly, but if it didn't in a week we would likely need to go to surgery.

This was during the period when folks were talking about requiring women to have state-supervised trans vaginal ultrasounds (i.e.: state rapes) to get abortions. There was even talk about sheriff's deputies being used to stop folks from getting surgical procedures.

I like to think I am a pretty stable individual, but we were both in a very emotional state at the time and the prospect of some banjo county holster sniffer telling me and my wife what medically necessary things we needed to do was enough to make me livid. Thank gods it never happened, but if it did, I don't know that I would be entirely in control of my actions.