| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/03/2012 05:11:56 PM · #1126 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I always wonder who is being polled when I see statistics. Did the pollsters ask women who would be directly affected by lack of access to abortion in their childbearing years, or mostly married and/or older women who wouldn't directly be affected or whose daughters were safely married, or who were members of a religious group that condemned abortion? Maybe those polled were not a cross section of women of childbearing age. I think the statistics might be very different depending on who was polled and where the poll was taken. |
I think most people would consider Pew to be about as good as a polling company gets. IIRC the polling numbers were about 7,000. If you are going to question the results based on methodologic flaws, then you really are going to have to toss all polling results we see. (Although I do think your questioning this is reasonable. Biases can creep into polls via population selection. My point is that Pew has been trusted to know what they are doing and don't have an obvious agenda.)
EDIT: I was wrong. It was about 4,000 people. You can view the whole report, including an idea of who was polled, here.
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 17:26:20. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 05:20:43 PM · #1127 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by frisca:
The reality is that only women can get pregnancy and the vast majority of women do not want access to abortion to be so seriously restricted. |
You saw the polling results right? You consider a 55-39 gap or a 50-42 gap to be a "vast majority"? I think your preception of reality is somewhat off. Just for clarity, the Pew poll question asks, "do you think abortion should be...legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in all cases, illegal in most cases".
Paul, thanks a million! I had no idea those tags even existed! |
I always wonder who is being polled when I see statistics. Did the pollsters ask women who would be directly affected by lack of access to abortion in their childbearing years, or mostly married and/or older women who wouldn't directly be affected or whose daughters were safely married, or who were members of a religious group that condemned abortion? Maybe those polled were not a cross section of women of childbearing age. I think the statistics might be very different depending on who was polled and where the poll was taken. |
Also, to follow on to CJ's comment, I always wonder if the people being polled have accurate information about how abortion plays out in the real world -- for example, if the respondents know that 88 percent of all elective abortions take place in the first trimester (in the U.S.), and that virtually 100 percent of late-term abortions are not elective but are medically necessary or due to fatal abnormalities of the fetus. There is an awful lot of inaccurate information/propaganda floating around that, in my opinion, has tainted the responses that people might otherwise have on this issue if they knew the truth. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 05:24:09 PM · #1128 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
If a womman gets pregnant under normal circumstances then she should go through full term. If she does not want the child there are plenty of people that would be happy to adopt a baby.
|
Really? Then why are so many children waiting to be adopted? This might just open your eyes a little further... |
Actually it shouldn't. For starters, the only number on that list that's relevent in this discussion are the new born statistics. Second, in the U.S. it's very difficult to adopt a baby because usually have to go through a private adoption agency and those can be very expensive. Not only that, but many of those agencies are religiously based and often you have to meet their own qualifications, if you know what I mean.
Fact of the matter is there are many who want to adopt but either can't afford it or can't qualify. |
So those children who aren't babies don't count? I'm pretty sure they all started out being babies. I don't get your point. These are children without homes, without families. Sure, maybe if you're young and healthy and white and the baby is also going to be healthy and white there might be people lining up to adopt. But otherwise, you can pretty much forget it. All those children on that list were given up for adoption. They're still waiting. Maybe, if, there were NONE waiting and a list of families to choose from more people would be willing to go the adoption route. Maybe not. |
My point is people do adopt and do care and that there are issues with the adoption system that make it difficult for more people to adopt. What I don't get is your point or why you posted that link in the first place? How does a 9 year old taken away from his abusive parents (i.e. one of many reasons you end up in foster care) has to do with a mother deciding to abort or give the baby up for adoption? Your link includes everyone in the system who got there for different reasons. To use that as an argument against adoption AS an alternative to abortion makes no sense to me especially when new borns ARE the most desirable to adopt. |
Yes, some people do adopt. Yes, it's difficult to do. You have to prove yourself which isn't really fair considering that a "natural" mother doesn't. But, my point still stands that as long as there are unwanted children out there, that can not get homes for what ever reason, more aren't needed.
Here's a little story for you. It's my own. I had my daughter when I was 24. I knew I didn't want any more kids. I really didn't want to have any kids, but when my birth control failed, I couldn't bring myself to abort just because my life wasn't as I wanted it. But when I had her I asked for my tubes to be tied. The doctor refused. I was told you either need to be over a certain age or have 2 kids. Pretty crazy rules if you ask me. Nine years later my birth control failed again. I had medical problems and couldn't take the pill, and used spermicides and condoms. We were careful. Nine years without a screw up. I was freaking out. But again, I couldn't bring myself to abort. I actually miscarried that child, and was told it was because of the spermicides. I again asked for my tubes to be tied and was refused again. A little more than a year later it happened again. At this point I was was 35 years old. I had many medical problems. It was going to be risky, but I went through with it. I arranged from the get go to have my tubes tied when I delivered. He was my second kid and they weren't allowed to say no. When I had to have an emergency C-section I told the doctors if they didn't tie my tubes I would sue the shit out of them. They were still refusing because they weren't sure my son would make it. I said it didn't matter, papers were signed. My point here is I had a miscarriage and a second child that I didn't want to have because someone else made the decision that at 24 I wasn't smart enough to know that I didn't want more kids. If the option of abortion hadn't at least been available and my choice to make, I might not have been the mother I've been. Being pro choice isn't being pro abortion, it's about being able to decide which way your life will go. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 05:31:15 PM · #1129 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Also, to follow on to CJ's comment, I always wonder if the people being polled have accurate information about how abortion plays out in the real world -- for example, if the respondents know that 88 percent of all elective abortions take place in the first trimester (in the U.S.), and that virtually 100 percent of late-term abortions are not elective but are medically necessary or due to fatal abnormalities of the fetus. There is an awful lot of inaccurate information/propaganda floating around that, in my opinion, has tainted the responses that people might otherwise have on this issue if they knew the truth. |
Ah, Judith. If we were only as educated as you we'd all share your opinion. Is that it? ;P |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 05:31:22 PM · #1130 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Here's a little story for you. It's my own. I had my daughter when I was 24. I knew I didn't want any more kids. I really didn't want to have any kids, but when my birth control failed, I couldn't bring myself to abort just because my life wasn't as I wanted it. But when I had her I asked for my tubes to be tied. The doctor refused. I was told you either need to be over a certain age or have 2 kids. Pretty crazy rules if you ask me. Nine years later my birth control failed again. I had medical problems and couldn't take the pill, and used spermicides and condoms. We were careful. Nine years without a screw up. I was freaking out. But again, I couldn't bring myself to abort. I actually miscarried that child, and was told it was because of the spermicides. I again asked for my tubes to be tied and was refused again. A little more than a year later it happened again. At this point I was was 35 years old. I had many medical problems. It was going to be risky, but I went through with it. I arranged from the get go to have my tubes tied when I delivered. He was my second kid and they weren't allowed to say no. When I had to have an emergency C-section I told the doctors if they didn't tie my tubes I would sue the shit out of them. They were still refusing because they weren't sure my son would make it. I said it didn't matter, papers were signed. My point here is I had a miscarriage and a second child that I didn't want to have because someone else made the decision that at 24 I wasn't smart enough to know that I didn't want more kids. If the option of abortion hadn't at least been available and my choice to make, I might not have been the mother I've been. Being pro choice isn't being pro abortion, it's about being able to decide which way your life will go. |
Unbelievable!! But I have to ask, what "rule" are you referring to? Is it the law in your state? In the United States? |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 05:34:56 PM · #1131 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Also, to follow on to CJ's comment, I always wonder if the people being polled have accurate information about how abortion plays out in the real world -- for example, if the respondents know that 88 percent of all elective abortions take place in the first trimester (in the U.S.), and that virtually 100 percent of late-term abortions are not elective but are medically necessary or due to fatal abnormalities of the fetus. There is an awful lot of inaccurate information/propaganda floating around that, in my opinion, has tainted the responses that people might otherwise have on this issue if they knew the truth. |
Ah, Judith. If we were only as educated as you we'd all share your opinion. Is that it? ;P |
I think there are a lot of people who have the mis-impression that millions of abortions are taking place late in pregnancy, and naturally many people would object to that. It's my opinion that there is much less objection to abortion the earlier in a pregnancy it occurs. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my opinion. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 05:51:46 PM · #1132 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Here's a little story for you. It's my own. I had my daughter when I was 24. I knew I didn't want any more kids. I really didn't want to have any kids, but when my birth control failed, I couldn't bring myself to abort just because my life wasn't as I wanted it. But when I had her I asked for my tubes to be tied. The doctor refused. I was told you either need to be over a certain age or have 2 kids. Pretty crazy rules if you ask me. Nine years later my birth control failed again. I had medical problems and couldn't take the pill, and used spermicides and condoms. We were careful. Nine years without a screw up. I was freaking out. But again, I couldn't bring myself to abort. I actually miscarried that child, and was told it was because of the spermicides. I again asked for my tubes to be tied and was refused again. A little more than a year later it happened again. At this point I was was 35 years old. I had many medical problems. It was going to be risky, but I went through with it. I arranged from the get go to have my tubes tied when I delivered. He was my second kid and they weren't allowed to say no. When I had to have an emergency C-section I told the doctors if they didn't tie my tubes I would sue the shit out of them. They were still refusing because they weren't sure my son would make it. I said it didn't matter, papers were signed. My point here is I had a miscarriage and a second child that I didn't want to have because someone else made the decision that at 24 I wasn't smart enough to know that I didn't want more kids. If the option of abortion hadn't at least been available and my choice to make, I might not have been the mother I've been. Being pro choice isn't being pro abortion, it's about being able to decide which way your life will go. |
Sorry to hear about your ordeal but I'm a little confused as to the details. Are you saying you wanted to have your tubes tied while already pregnant and that the last doctor refused because you were having an emergency c-section and it threaten your unborn son's life? So in other words you wanted them to perform the late term abortion and then tie your tubes? Why couldn't you have your tubes tied before getting pregnant? Is that because of some law? |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 05:57:42 PM · #1133 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Sorry to hear about your ordeal but I'm a little confused as to the details. Are you saying you wanted to have your tubes tied while already pregnant and that the last doctor refused because you were having an emergency c-section and it threaten your unborn son's life? So in other words you wanted them to perform the late term abortion and then tie your tubes? Why couldn't you have your tubes tied before getting pregnant? Is that because of some law? |
No, she's saying there existed a "rule" that they wouldn't tie the tubes of any woman until she'd had 2 children or passed a certain (unspecified in this recounting) age. Even if the mother would be at medical risk if she underwent pregnancy.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2012 06:01:48 PM · #1134 |
I wasn't there, of course, but I know of at least two possibilities.
1) The doctor looked at Kelli's age and figured she may change her mind in the future. Having your tubes tied is pretty irreversible and so it's a tough call to do this to someone so young. I don't know if people have tried to sue their OB/GYN for not having warned them away from doing something like this, but OB/GYNs are probably a jumpy group when it comes to lawsuits.
2) Getting your tubes tied is elective and, thus, often not covered by insurance. Perhaps the OB/GYN though he/she wasn't going to get paid for the procedure and was looking for a reason not to do it. (that is TOTALLY speculative).
There is no "rule" about not tying tubes at a certain age other than personal rules by individual doctors. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 06:11:01 PM · #1135 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Here's a little story for you. It's my own. I had my daughter when I was 24. I knew I didn't want any more kids. I really didn't want to have any kids, but when my birth control failed, I couldn't bring myself to abort just because my life wasn't as I wanted it. But when I had her I asked for my tubes to be tied. The doctor refused. I was told you either need to be over a certain age or have 2 kids. Pretty crazy rules if you ask me. Nine years later my birth control failed again. I had medical problems and couldn't take the pill, and used spermicides and condoms. We were careful. Nine years without a screw up. I was freaking out. But again, I couldn't bring myself to abort. I actually miscarried that child, and was told it was because of the spermicides. I again asked for my tubes to be tied and was refused again. A little more than a year later it happened again. At this point I was was 35 years old. I had many medical problems. It was going to be risky, but I went through with it. I arranged from the get go to have my tubes tied when I delivered. He was my second kid and they weren't allowed to say no. When I had to have an emergency C-section I told the doctors if they didn't tie my tubes I would sue the shit out of them. They were still refusing because they weren't sure my son would make it. I said it didn't matter, papers were signed. My point here is I had a miscarriage and a second child that I didn't want to have because someone else made the decision that at 24 I wasn't smart enough to know that I didn't want more kids. If the option of abortion hadn't at least been available and my choice to make, I might not have been the mother I've been. Being pro choice isn't being pro abortion, it's about being able to decide which way your life will go. |
Kelli, your story makes me LIVID! You were an adult at 24 and why you couldn't decide for yourself not to have more children is beyond me. We have had, and in some cases still do have, such a patriarchal society that thinks women cannot make their own decisions about their fertility. Some doctor plays "father" to you and decides that you would regret having your tubes tied at such a young age. Maybe you would have, but that was never his decision to make. Maybe the insurance companies had something to do with it and might not have covered the tubal ligation, but I bet you would have been willing to cover the expense yourself, if given the choice. And that's the problem, women are frequently not given the choice in these situations. I do hope this practice of denying women sterilization if they want it has been stopped. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 06:13:52 PM · #1136 |
| Why did you assume the doctor was a man? |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 06:18:56 PM · #1137 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why did you assume the doctor was a man? |
Most of the ob/gyn's were men "back in the day" - very few women went into that field for a variety of reasons. I'm married to a doctor and have been part of the medical community for many years - still very few females in the field it seems. If it was a woman, very "matriarchal" to make that decision for another woman. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 06:33:39 PM · #1138 |
| Man, you are making me feel old when 1990 was "back in the day"! |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 06:36:51 PM · #1139 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Stand on a street corner some day and ask 100 women if their husbands do their 50% share. |
The problem now is if you ask 100 women, most won't have husbands in the first place. Safe sex doesn't exist. Sex produces fatherless children. Sons who don't have a father to teach them to be a man. Daughters who have no father to love them.
I feel sorry for this and the next generation that have grown up with fatherless families. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 06:43:49 PM · #1140 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The problem now is if you ask 100 women, most won't have husbands in the first place. |
The census disagrees. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 06:49:57 PM · #1141 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Here's a little story for you. It's my own. I had my daughter when I was 24. I knew I didn't want any more kids. I really didn't want to have any kids, but when my birth control failed, I couldn't bring myself to abort just because my life wasn't as I wanted it. But when I had her I asked for my tubes to be tied. The doctor refused. I was told you either need to be over a certain age or have 2 kids. Pretty crazy rules if you ask me. Nine years later my birth control failed again. I had medical problems and couldn't take the pill, and used spermicides and condoms. We were careful. Nine years without a screw up. I was freaking out. But again, I couldn't bring myself to abort. I actually miscarried that child, and was told it was because of the spermicides. I again asked for my tubes to be tied and was refused again. A little more than a year later it happened again. At this point I was was 35 years old. I had many medical problems. It was going to be risky, but I went through with it. I arranged from the get go to have my tubes tied when I delivered. He was my second kid and they weren't allowed to say no. When I had to have an emergency C-section I told the doctors if they didn't tie my tubes I would sue the shit out of them. They were still refusing because they weren't sure my son would make it. I said it didn't matter, papers were signed. My point here is I had a miscarriage and a second child that I didn't want to have because someone else made the decision that at 24 I wasn't smart enough to know that I didn't want more kids. If the option of abortion hadn't at least been available and my choice to make, I might not have been the mother I've been. Being pro choice isn't being pro abortion, it's about being able to decide which way your life will go. |
Unbelievable!! But I have to ask, what "rule" are you referring to? Is it the law in your state? In the United States? |
Truthfully, I don't know who's "rules" they are. But ask anyone who's tried... //www.circleofmoms.com/debating-mums/tubal-ligation-harder-to-get-than-an-abortion-613159
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 18:50:14. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 07:01:13 PM · #1142 |
| Ob/gyn is one messed up specialty. Probably because your dealing with women all the time. (that was for frisca, and I'm just kidding). |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 07:03:29 PM · #1143 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Sorry to hear about your ordeal but I'm a little confused as to the details. Are you saying you wanted to have your tubes tied while already pregnant and that the last doctor refused because you were having an emergency c-section and it threaten your unborn son's life? So in other words you wanted them to perform the late term abortion and then tie your tubes? Why couldn't you have your tubes tied before getting pregnant? Is that because of some law? |
No, she's saying there existed a "rule" that they wouldn't tie the tubes of any woman until she'd had 2 children or passed a certain (unspecified in this recounting) age. Even if the mother would be at medical risk if she underwent pregnancy. |
Yeah I got that part, which is strange. If she's an adult and legally able to make decisions then the doctors shouldn't stop her from having her tubes tied in general. What I didn't get was the last part, when she describes what happened to her when she was 35. It sounded like she was saying that she wanted to have the doctors perform major surgery while also in delivery of her son. It's hard to imagine her being stable enough after a c-section never mind the risk to her son.
ETA: Ok, it looks like it may be more common than I thought, so scratch the last part off.
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 19:11:47. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 07:08:33 PM · #1144 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why did you assume the doctor was a man? |
It was. A much older man as a matter of fact who kind of acted like he was my father. And my insurance would have covered it no problem. All three times I asked as a matter of fact. I did have it done during my c-section with my son but I honestly believe it was only because I was freaking out and telling them I was going to sue the shit out of them if they didn't do it before they knocked me out. I wasn't quite so aggressive the first two times. But I went through hell with that last pregnancy in and out of the hospital and no way in hell was I doing it again. I forget the age they told me at the time. I think it was 30 or some other ridiculous number or 2 kids. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 07:08:55 PM · #1145 |
dup post
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 19:09:30. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 07:15:19 PM · #1146 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Sorry to hear about your ordeal but I'm a little confused as to the details. Are you saying you wanted to have your tubes tied while already pregnant and that the last doctor refused because you were having an emergency c-section and it threaten your unborn son's life? So in other words you wanted them to perform the late term abortion and then tie your tubes? Why couldn't you have your tubes tied before getting pregnant? Is that because of some law? |
No, she's saying there existed a "rule" that they wouldn't tie the tubes of any woman until she'd had 2 children or passed a certain (unspecified in this recounting) age. Even if the mother would be at medical risk if she underwent pregnancy. |
Yeah I got that part, which is strange. If she's an adult and legally able to make decisions then the doctors shouldn't stop her from having her tubes tied in general. What I didn't get was the last part, when she describes what happened to her when she was 35. It sounded like she was saying that she wanted to have the doctors perform major surgery while also in delivery of her son. It's hard to imagine her being stable enough after a c-section never mind the risk to her son. |
What happened is, the paper work was signed way before hand. It was supposed to be done the day after delivery. But I ended up having an emergency C-section. At the time that they told me they had to do that, they also told me they weren't going to honor the agreement to tie my tubes because there was a risk the baby might not make it (nothing to do with the surgery). They wanted me to agree to wait two weeks. They can and do frequently do this surgery immediately following a c-section while they are still "in" there. The delay would have meant going home and coming back for another surgery. I wasn't changing my mind no matter what, so why come back weeks later? Again, I believe they thought if they didn't do it then, I would change my mind later. They were very against the procedure. |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 07:22:30 PM · #1147 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, you are making me feel old when 1990 was "back in the day"! |
I can relate to that... I started working in the RCMP in 1966
Ray |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 07:25:06 PM · #1148 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ah, Judith. If we were only as educated as you we'd all share your opinion. Is that it? ;P |
Actually NO but an open mind might help.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 07:34:20 PM · #1149 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ob/gyn is one messed up specialty. Probably because your dealing with women all the time. (that was for frisca, and I'm just kidding). |
Fortunately, more women are going into ob/gyn and family practice and many women are now able to see a female doctor if they wish. We have a lot better rapport with a female physician about female issues.
Male doctors just don't listen to women. (that was for Jason and I was just kidding) After all, I'm married to one and his female patients LOVE him [and his male patients like him a lot!]. :-) |
|
|
|
05/03/2012 07:44:09 PM · #1150 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Stand on a street corner some day and ask 100 women if their husbands do their 50% share. |
The problem now is if you ask 100 women, most won't have husbands in the first place. Safe sex doesn't exist. Sex produces fatherless children. Sons who don't have a father to teach them to be a man. Daughters who have no father to love them.
I feel sorry for this and the next generation that have grown up with fatherless families. |
... and of course you would have empirical evidence to support this.
Truth be told, (some individuals,) confuse being a sperm donor with the role normally associated with being a father. Over the years I have known a lot of individuals whose abilities as a parent were woefully inadequate, notwithstanding the fact that they fathered a child.
Don't fret for the next generation... worry more about yours who, due to religious zealotry have managed to convey a twisted perception as to what life should be and have managed to taint an innocent mind.
Not all religious people should be viewed in a bad light, but there are times when the message that some convey really makes one wonder about the goodness that they would have us associate with their beliefs.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-05-03 19:45:08. |
|
