• [WaPo] I wanted to provide abortions. My med school wouldn't teach me how
    44 replies, posted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2019/01/04/feature/i-wanted-to-provide-abortions-for-my-patients-my-med-school-wouldnt-teach-me-how/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a3cfabbf61bd At some point during my residency, a faculty member pulled me aside to ask, “Why do you even want to do this?” Then and now, my answer is: If I can, and I’m willing, then why wouldn’t I? Today, I am one of four physicians regularly providing abortions in Arkansas, which is home to 1.5 million women. Who else is going to speak up for them?
At some point during my residency, a faculty member pulled me aside to ask, “Why do you even want to do this?” none of your goddamn business pal
It baffles me how it's still a question whether or not women can decide what happens to their bodies. Why would someone want to provide abortions? I don't know, maybe because there are thousands of women who aren't ready to have a child, can't support a child, became pregnant to less than ideal circumstances, dangerous for their health or the health of the baby. There are so many reasons why this sort of thing should be available but all people care about is "won't somebody please think of the fetus!". It's not always easy for women to even ask for abortions, but we should trust that they have their reasons for it.
Because it's good to give people options??? You have to be stupid to ask that question really, unless you really don't know why they'd want to give people that option, in which case you're still really stupid.
There's too many children already and people argue that every pregnancy should be seen through to birth. It's lunacy.
Being the devil's advocate, I can see why some would argue against abortions when there are forms for birth control. They don't really argue against abortions when it’s a question about the health of the mother, but in their view they classify the fetus as "life of its own" and that you got plenty of birth control options to prevent it (pill 92%, m-condoms 82%, f-condoms 79%, patch 91%, hormone shot >99%, IUD >99%, hormone implant >99% .. etc). Personally, I’m pro-abortion as the parents might not be able to support the child, live in a hostile/non-kid friendly environment and there is still a chance of pregnancy with normal means. I would however, draw the line when the higher brain functions kick in (12th week), in USA the line is draw at 24th week when the fetus is “viable” outside the womb and I do think that is a bit late (Unless its a life-thread for the mother).
Just gonna devil's advocate your devil's advocate here, you provided percentages there which in reverse mean 8% risk on pill, 18% on condoms, 21% on female condoms, 9% on patch and a non-zero value on the remaining. What if you hit that 'bad roll' and get pregnant in spite of proper protection? Abortion okay in that case? My personal opinion is that abortion is always okay, and the reason to get it is nobody but the persons getting the abortions' business.
Not sure, never heard any pro-life's talk about bad roll's. The argument I hear usually emphasize on the cells being alive and that there are birth protection. I would guess most people don't know how high the risk are for condoms and normal means of birth control. I've heard people say "condoms got a 98% protection rate". The baby starts kicking and moving around from week 16'ish, are you sure that your eyebrow won't rise a bit if its as late as 33 weeks?
That's a terrible argument. Unless the mother health is at risk or the baby is already dead, there's not a reasonable reason to have an abortion. There's also a whole bunch of arguments regarding the father of the baby who almost always omitted in these cases.
The father shouldn't even be a factor. He doesn't have to carry it in his body and change almost every aspect of his life to accommodate the pregnancy. He doesn't have to risk being fired for being pregnant and he doesn't have to risk literally dying if the absolute worst case scenario happens during birth. No reasonable reason my ass.
are you a woman?
It's not a baby, it's a fetus.
all this what aboutisms about how the father feels about an underdeveloped fetus being taken away from "him" it must be tragic everytime you masturbate to lose all those potential children
So you're saying that after the sperm leaves the man's body, it's not his problem anymore? What a world would that be. What a non argument. At which point a fetus becomes a baby? Also a fetus inevitable becomes a baby, unless something goes wrong. I wasn't aware semen could become children by itself. What we need women for, then?
Not at all what they're saying. They're saying the father doesn't carry the child in his body, whereas a mother has to go through a world of pain.
What are you getting at? The pregnancy relates to the woman's body, it is hers to keep or terminate how she pleases. Are you saying a man should be able to step in and say "No. You must carry this child to term against your will." ? Also, so what if a fetus can become a baby eventually? Most abortions are done at or before week 12 when it's barely out of the embryonic stage. Maybe you shouldn't be doing hot takes when you dont even know when it stops being a fetus.
So the woman can say, "I will carry this child to term" even if the man doesn't want a child and then hit him with child support. You think that's fair? Besides while the fetus is inside her body, it's not her body. Any unborn baby is a fetus. From day 0 to birth. Sure, we may refer to fetus as embryo before the 9th week, but it's still a fetus. It's still a developing human being. What is the justification for ending another life if A) the health of the mother is not at risk by the gestation B) the fetus is not dead.
nice dude. who does the body belong to? the fetus? the man who put the fetus there?
Strangest thing I've read this week.
While he shouldn't have right to force woman into pregnancy she doesn't want, he should have right to terminate it. As Its his half of genes and his future child support that he will need to pay. If mother wants to continue pregnancy while father doesn't, then there should be legal paperwork that lifts child support payments from him imo What is justification for slaughtering farm animals to eat? These animals have huge amount of brain activity and actual emotional/pain/sensory processing going on, comparing to lump of cells that has zero brain activity whatsoever. Not that im against eating meat, but I kinda find it hilarious that some people go crazy over lump of cells but show no care to killing animals with complex brain processes going on.
I would draw no line. The law should stay out of it, it's a perfectly fine and sometimes necessary medical procedure, women should have access to it (at any age) for any reason, and the law should stay away. It's not a perfect system, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved for at least one of the people in it (Especially the one impacted the most: Women). A foetus does not have a right to live at the detriment to its host, this is 100% a bodily autonomy issue. Women should have autonomy over their pregnancy, not the foetus, not the government.
Yeah dude. That's exactly what I'm saying. If a woman becomes pregnant she should be the only one making the decision to keep or terminate that pregnancy. It is her body while the fetus exists. I wish you would quit dancing around this issue and just state who you think a womans body belongs to, but I know you won't. As for justification, why should the woman be saddled with the burden of pregnancy, child birth, child rearing and all the changes that brings to someone's life if she doesnt want it. Yeah, wow, dudes have to pay child support. Cry me a fuckin river. If she keeps custody she has a lot more on her plate than he does. The idea of forcing a women to have an abortion against her will is as equally insane as forcing her to carry it to term. What does it matter that it's half his gene's anyway? We dont make that argument in favor of rapists now do we? There is already a legal framework for men to drop out of child support. This is something that can be resolved without forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure.
The lump of cells is a slippery slope. Everybody is a lump of cells. As for eating animals, we do it out of necessity. Plants also suffer, so the argument that we should be eating only plants instead is void. That is point A. If the fetus puts the mother's life at risk, then by all means, terminate the pregnancy. Autonomy over pregnancy? A fetus is something that is on an inevitable path to become it's own entity. And he only has half of the woman's genetic material. If a life is to be preserved and protected, why would you want to give women the autonomy to just end one on a whim?
Roughly 50%+ of pregnancies end in "natural" terminations (miscarriages) anyway. There is no guarantee a pregnancy is viable. But that's begging the question. Women should not be forced to carry a foetus to term, it is their body, not the foetuses, not the government's, and not the fathers. We give women this right because they have bodily autonomy, this is a pretty basic freedom: They get to decide what goes in inside their body.
And the same courtesy shouldn't be extended to the fetus on account that it isn't born? Isn't it basic freedom?
If it could survive on it's own, and wasn't inside of somebody's body. Sure, but the rights of the woman > the "rights" of the foetus, every time. A woman should not be forced to give birth, nor have a C-section done. It is their choice what happens, be it giving birth, or having an abortion. It is their body.
Unless you want to say that the fetus is property of the mother, something that violates the 13th Amendment, the fetus is it's own body. Because if surviving on it's own is a requirement to be a person, anybody that is on life support is not a person and doesn't have any rights.
You're misunderstanding my point, a person on life support isn't relying on the body of somebody else. This is (hypothetically) more akin to a person needing a lung transplant, you cannot force somebody else to donate that organ, including that person's parents.
Raising a child is also 18 years. Those 9 months are not easy or quick either. Why do you keep framing pregnancy, child birth, and child rearing as some minor thing compared to garnished wages? So you're ok with denying someone rights as soon as conception happens? Quit dodging the point and take a concrete position. Your refusal to acknowledge the fundamental hypocrisy of eliminating an existing persons rights for a potential, not even fully formed person is really gross.
She has no rights over someone's else body, it's that simple. And "not even fully formed" is a slippery slope, since we also develop outside the womb.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.