See ya Planned Parenthood. Disgusting practices.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
crandc said:
D Rock, only the first paragraph was addressed to you. Sorry if I was unclear.

What do you mean by "owning up to the responsibility"? Is that ONLY carrying to term? I would say a woman who makes an appointment with a clinic, goes through counseling, and undergoes a surgical procedure, even an out-patient one, is taking responsibility. And that's in states like California. In many others she has to be forced to undergo and pay for medically unnecessary ultrasound, hear a medically inaccurate lecture prepared by anti-abortion groups, see pictures of fetuses, hold funeral services for fetus, wait 24, 48, or 72 hours, which involves making two appointments with a clinic that may be hundreds of miles away, since the majority of women seeking abortions already have at least one child, arrange childcare, transportation, time off work she may not be paid for, may lose her job by taking time off ... how much pain is owning up to responsibility?

I have an adopted niece, she just got accepted at Mills College with a $32K scholarship (yes, bragging). Adoption can be a loving alternative but ONLY when freely chosen. Women are not breeding animals and must never be forced to bear a child so that someone else can have him/her.

As far as a man making a woman sign a legal document or somesuch that he would not be responsible for accidental pregnancy - well, aside from the fact that, as has been pointed out, child support is for the child, I can't imagine even the horniest hetero woman going with a man like that! I mean, I know some women have shitty taste in men, but that is pretty extreme even for straight ladies.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought. No harm, no foul. :)

In the context of my comment, "owning up to the responsibility" meant carrying the child. I don't question that going through an abortion can be and often is a traumatic and life altering experience. In fact, there are many women that never fully recover from it physically and/or emotionally. But I don't see it as the same thing as owning the responsibility of carrying a human life (in whatever form it comes in). In making the choice to have an abortion, they're removing the responsibility of carrying the child and raising it and instead taking on the burden that is the abortion and the resulting aftermath. I guess I could be splitting hairs. Either situation would be awful to be in.
 
Having an abortion is not necessarily the "easier" path. It is what the woman in a given situation thinks is the correct path for her at that time. It strikes me as supremely arrogant for some other person who does not know her or frankly care about her to say I KNOW BETTER and try to forcibly prevent her choice.

Not just arrogant, vicious.

You are wrong also about "women never recover from abortion". This has been studied and is simply not true. For the vast majority, there are no physical effects and few long term emotional. Since women do not have abortions because they hate children, regardless of what woman-haters say, they may feel that had circumstances been different they would have wanted a child but in the circumstances they were in made the best choice. The ones who do suffer are those whose wanted pregnancies went horribly wrong, especially when discovered late, as tends to happen in such cases. These women (and men) have by this time thought of names, prepared a nursery, etc. It is not the abortion that devastates them but the realization the pregnancy was not viable.

Unfortunately, stigmatizing abortion, telling women they have committed murder, shaming them, does cause trauma. Not the abortion but the censure. This is especially true in certain religious communities, where women are told they have committed a terrible sin.

What has been shown to be traumatic and life altering is forcing women to have children against their will. Many show self-destructive behavior for years, even decades, afterwards.

So D-Rock I would very seriously suggest you amass a few facts before mansplaining to me how abortion makes women suffer.
 
WOW! You keep pointing the finger at everyone else, and ignore the woman’s part in the problem, and the solution.

Only 4% of abortions are the result of rape or incest. There are a whole lot of mistakes being made by women.

How hard is it for women to carry a condom in their purse, and to make wearing it a condition of having unplanned sex?
 
crandc said:
Having an abortion is not necessarily the "easier" path. It is what the woman in a given situation thinks is the correct path for her at that time. It strikes me as supremely arrogant for some other person who does not know her or frankly care about her to say I KNOW BETTER and try to forcibly prevent her choice.

Not just arrogant, vicious.

You are wrong also about "women never recover from abortion". This has been studied and is simply not true. For the vast majority, there are no physical effects and few long term emotional. Since women do not have abortions because they hate children, regardless of what woman-haters say, they may feel that had circumstances been different they would have wanted a child but in the circumstances they were in made the best choice. The ones who do suffer are those whose wanted pregnancies went horribly wrong, especially when discovered late, as tends to happen in such cases. These women (and men) have by this time thought of names, prepared a nursery, etc. It is not the abortion that devastates them but the realization the pregnancy was not viable.

Unfortunately, stigmatizing abortion, telling women they have committed murder, shaming them, does cause trauma. Not the abortion but the censure. This is especially true in certain religious communities, where women are told they have committed a terrible sin.

What has been shown to be traumatic and life altering is forcing women to have children against their will. Many show self-destructive behavior for years, even decades, afterwards.

So D-Rock I would very seriously suggest you amass a few facts before mansplaining to me how abortion makes women suffer.
Click to expand...

I cannot even begin to understand how difficult a decision this must be for a woman to make. It might be a slam dunk choice to go through with it, but the potential feelings of guilt, trauma, and the "discomfort" (for lack of a better word) of the procedure... Plus the godawful judgments by family, friends, and clearly people she doesn't even know.
 
crandc said:
Having an abortion is not necessarily the "easier" path. It is what the woman in a given situation thinks is the correct path for her at that time. It strikes me as supremely arrogant for some other person who does not know her or frankly care about her to say I KNOW BETTER and try to forcibly prevent her choice.

Not just arrogant, vicious.

You are wrong also about "women never recover from abortion". This has been studied and is simply not true. For the vast majority, there are no physical effects and few long term emotional. Since women do not have abortions because they hate children, regardless of what woman-haters say, they may feel that had circumstances been different they would have wanted a child but in the circumstances they were in made the best choice. The ones who do suffer are those whose wanted pregnancies went horribly wrong, especially when discovered late, as tends to happen in such cases. These women (and men) have by this time thought of names, prepared a nursery, etc. It is not the abortion that devastates them but the realization the pregnancy was not viable.

Unfortunately, stigmatizing abortion, telling women they have committed murder, shaming them, does cause trauma. Not the abortion but the censure. This is especially true in certain religious communities, where women are told they have committed a terrible sin.

What has been shown to be traumatic and life altering is forcing women to have children against their will. Many show self-destructive behavior for years, even decades, afterwards.

So D-Rock I would very seriously suggest you amass a few facts before mansplaining to me how abortion makes women suffer.
Click to expand...

Wow, ok. That was a fairly antagonistic response to comments that had zero malice in them whatsoever. Please enlighten me on how I was "mansplaining."

I never said abortion was an easy choice, in fact I said it's an awful situation to be in to have that kind of decision to make, but how can you honestly say that having an abortion isn't the easier path in the long run than having a life that you're responsible for for a minimum of 18 years and then some? One is a procedure and a process that lasts a maybe a month or so, and the other is a lifetime of responsibility. I'd argue that there's potentially long lasting effects that make having an abortion less of the easier choice, but you claim that's false too (although you then turn around and admit that SOME women experience some degree of permanent physical and/or emotional damage from having had an abortion). It's the path the woman wants to take because it's not the right moment for her to have gotten pregnant. She's not compelled or forced to do it. I haven't said anything about forcibly preventing women's choice. My comments haven't been questioning an individual women's situation, but society's widespread acceptance of this practice as a natural normal and even encouraged thing when I strongly feel it should be more of a last resort. I haven't even suggested legislating my personal views.

I'm guessing that you missed the word "many" when I said many women, not all women, (I didn't even say most) don't recover from it physically and/or emotionally. You just said that 1/3 of American women have abortions. I think that number is high, but who am I to question a woman on such a thing?. There were about 125.9 million adult women in the United States in 2014 (Wikipedia). 1/3 of that means 42 million women will have had an abortion at some point in their life. If only 10% of that number experience permanent physical or emotional trauma, that's 4.2 Million women. I'd say that's "many." Even 1% of 42 million is many to me. You can argue proportionality, but whatever, it's not like I was trying to write a dissertation on the OT forum of the a Blazers fan site. You even said yourself that women experience permanent effects. I wasn't addressing the reasons for the permanent trauma other than it stems from having had an abortion. Call it stigma, call it whatever. Argue that it's not the abortion, but people's response to the woman having had the abortion. But for the abortion, it wouldn't exist. It exists and that's all I was pointing out. I stated abortions should be legally and sociably acceptable under the right circumstances. What you think are the right circumstances and what I think are the right circumstances are unquestionably different, but I at least acknowledge the possibility of a view outside my own, but you seem intent on playing the "my way or the highway" card.

So, Crandc, I would very seriously suggest you stop reading negative and oppressive tones into my and other people's comments before claiming I'm "mansplaining" to you how abortion makes women suffer. Which, incidentally, hasn't even remotely been the point of my comments. You asked me to define "owning up." To me, "owning up" is accepting a problem and dealing with it. The problem here being the unwanted pregnancy. IMHO, having an abortion is not owning up, it's getting rid of it, whatever the reason may be. Do I disagree with the decision? Obviously, but I'm not berating or treating anyone different because they made a choice I think was wrong.
 
b1f7b5fe076143a59fab3eafda3169c7
 
I have been intimately involved with this issue before most of you were born. So yes I do get irritated when dudes who were never pregnant and have no real knowledge mansplain abortion to me.

It is not always true that abortion is a hard, or least of many evils, choice. For some women it is hard, even wrenching. For others, matter of fact. Saying abortion is always a terrible choice implies sex role stereotyping, because she is a woman, she must really want children even under bad circumstances so it is terrible she has to have an abortion (even if it should be legal). I would not deny another woman's feelings. If she says she feels grief I would not tell her it's really no big deal. If she feels matter of fact I don't say she should be crying her eyes out. But if you ask the women (which I doubt many here have) you find very little despair among those who have had abortions, and a great deal more among those who had forced births.

There are, occasionally, women who don't own pregnancies. Mostly very young. You read about them, the 14 year old who hid her pregnancy and had a baby in the school bathroom, then tried to flush the newborn down the toilet. Terrible that she was so alone with no one to turn to. But those are exceptions. Most pregnant women absolutely do take ownership of their pregnancies because, frankly, it's pretty damn hard to ignore. Saying that unless a woman does what YOU DEMAND she do she is not "really" taking ownership is indeed arrogant.

The late Dr. George Tiller, murdered during church service by "right to life", said his motto was "trust women". He could give medical information and care, but ultimately the woman herself knew better than anyone else what her situation and needs were. And her choices needed to be trusted and respected. Sadly, there are too many (here, in Congress, in State legislatures, on the bench) who are convinced that THEY KNOW BETTER what the outcome of every pregnancy MUST be.

Incidentally I have still seen no response from the "abortion is murder" crowd to the ramifications of that statement. But I am very glad we are at least talking about real world issues and not blue's wet dreams about what Planned Parenthood never did.
 
Last week, the Republican-led senate nixed efforts to save a federal mandate established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA, a.k.a. Obamacare) that health insurers provide birth control with no additional cost to users, and which saved U.S. women $1.4 billion in copays in 2013 alone. As TIME Money reported last week, the expandedbirth-control coverage has been "a key factor driving down average out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs," with a Kaiser Family Foundation report citing oral contraceptives as responsible for a 63% drop in average out-of-pocket spending on retail drugs since the law was enacted in 2012.

And the astronomical cost of cutting the mandate almost certainly wouldn't end there .

Beyond forcing women to shell out for birth control, such legislation could invite fairly staggering expense all around. For example, unplanned pregnancies can easily cost U.S. taxpayers upwards of $20 billion per year just in birth-related hospital fees. As NPR reported in 2012, investments in family-planning services, including those made available through expanded access to Medicaid, not only "more than pay for themselves" but also stand to save government further billions in healthcare and other related costs.

In most social-science research areas, of course, the long-term and virtually inestimable financial impact of unplanned pregnancies--or, more broadly, that of governmental obstruction in women's individual health- and reproductive-management (at times a fascinatingly complicated thing)--has yet to be determined, on the daily, annual, or millennial scale. Further study is needed and, presumably, funding.

The potential coverage loss comes alongside fears that lawmakers will also reassert a popular Republican stance that women should pay more for basic healthcare (that is, without those finicky charges related to motherhood), perhaps based loosely on the fact that women rack up more primary-care and diagnostic visits, if not on something a bit more internalized.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwb...men-1-4b-a-year-in-copays-alone/#2645bfce28d1
 
Also, Dog, pre-existing conditions no longer covered. That includes pregnancy.

This happened where I worked - the company changed its insurance carrier. Two women were pregnant. They were denied coverage for the remainder of their pregnancies as the pregnancies were pre-existing conditions. Fortunately both were married to men who had insurance, but in one case with much lesser coverage. Single women or lesbians who could not then marry were just SOL when that happened.
 
crandc said:
Also, Dog, pre-existing conditions no longer covered. That includes pregnancy.

This happened where I worked - the company changed its insurance carrier. Two women were pregnant. They were denied coverage for the remainder of their pregnancies as the pregnancies were pre-existing conditions. Fortunately both were married to men who had insurance, but in one case with much lesser coverage. Single women or lesbians who could not then marry were just SOL when that happened.
Click to expand...

You're just now figuring out that Make American Great Again means going back to the era of June Cleaver?

Now put your pearls and heels on and let the men talk.

2c531fd2afd84c2215e9355c7bb34047.jpg
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443746/republican-health-care-plan-rand-paul

Paul would eliminate the pre-existing-condition regulations altogether (after a transition period), while his other reforms would significantly reduce the number of people who genuinely cannot buy health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. For those who still need help, Paul envisions responsibility for covering them being shifted to the states, possibly in conjunction with proposals to block-grant Medicaid

This would give states the freedom to experiment with ways to cover people who are unable to buy their own insurance for whatever reason, whether pre-existing conditions or low income. Importantly, it prevents a small number of high-cost cases from distorting the rest of the insurance pool. It wouldn’t try to insure the uninsurable, but would provide their health care more directly. After all, it is health care that counts, not health insurance.
 
Denny Crane said:
We should have health insurance to handle catastrophic circumstances.
Click to expand...

Every person who has died did so from catastrophic circumstances. You dying from your heart stopping in your sleep is a catastrophic circumstances since it ends in..... you know.... death.
 
crandc said:
Also, Dog, pre-existing conditions no longer covered. That includes pregnancy.

This happened where I worked - the company changed its insurance carrier. Two women were pregnant. They were denied coverage for the remainder of their pregnancies as the pregnancies were pre-existing conditions. Fortunately both were married to men who had insurance, but in one case with much lesser coverage. Single women or lesbians who could not then marry were just SOL when that happened.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but what needs to be insured here?
 
women, MarAzul. Remember us? Women who were pregnant when employer changed insurance companies. And because they had pre-existing condition (pregnant) their pregnancies were not covered. These two women I knew were fortunate to be able to get some coverage from their husbands' insurance. But had they been single or gay, no husband or a partner not then recognized, that would not have happened and they would have gone through pregnancy and delivery stuck with all the expenses. The vote to eliminate the Affordable Care Act rejected an amendment that insurance companies could not refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, a key measure in the ACA. So in the brave new world of Trumpcare, once again pregnant women can be cut off.

Pro-life, indeed.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Every person who has died did so from catastrophic circumstances. You dying from your heart stopping in your sleep is a catastrophic circumstances since it ends in..... you know.... death.
Click to expand...

Catastrophic circumstances: Requiring surgery or extended hospital stay or expensive procedures.

Yes, people die even with insurance. Crazy dog logic again.
 
crandc said:
women, MarAzul. Remember us? Women who were pregnant when employer changed insurance companies. And because they had pre-existing condition (pregnant) their pregnancies were not covered. These two women I knew were fortunate to be able to get some coverage from their husbands' insurance. But had they been single or gay, no husband or a partner not then recognized, that would not have happened and they would have gone through pregnancy and delivery stuck with all the expenses. The vote to eliminate the Affordable Care Act rejected an amendment that insurance companies could not refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, a key measure in the ACA. So in the brave new world of Trumpcare, once again pregnant women can be cut off.

Pro-life, indeed.
Click to expand...

Republicans have long called for requiring continuous coverage if a person changes insurance companies for any reason. Since before Obama.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
You're just now figuring out that Make American Great Again means going back to the era of June Cleaver?

Now put your pearls and heels on and let the men talk.

2c531fd2afd84c2215e9355c7bb34047.jpg
Click to expand...

I know right?!? Crandc and I come from a generation where insurance covered every prescription, even testosterone for impotent men, except for "The Pill" and we had to include that expensive monthly prescription in the budget even though we made less money than our male counterparts. Now, granted, we're both college educated professional women who were able to consistently manage that but this is a disaster for our sisters without that kind of opportunity and earning capacity.
 
Denny Crane said:
We should have health insurance to handle catastrophic circumstances. That's what insurance is. That's what it used to be.

My auto insurance doesn't cover oil change or brake repairs.
Click to expand...

Birth control prevents the catastrophic circumstance of paying for prenatal care, delivery in a hospital, and potential complications for the mother and child.
 
Spud147 said:
I know right?!? Crandc and I come from a generation where insurance covered every prescription, even testosterone for impotent men, except for "The Pill" and we had to include that expensive monthly prescription in the budget even though we made less money than our male counterparts. Now, granted, we're both college educated professional women who were able to consistently manage that but this is a disaster for our sisters without that kind of opportunity and earning capacity.
Click to expand...

Why should insurance cover any of that?

I have one medication I take that costs me $15. The drug company wants to charge $200+ for it. But they sent me a card that cut the price to $15. All I had to do was fill out a form on their WWW site. No hardship kind of situation. The companies have lots of these kinds of programs.

Plus, if insurance wasn't paying the $200+, they wouldn't sell much of the drug because people wouldn't pay that much. And the price would come down to a reasonable amount.

No such thing as a free lunch.
 
crandc said:
women, MarAzul. Remember us?
Click to expand...

I was just wondering how big a problem it is, where lesbians works for a company that changes insurance companies, catching them in the pregnant window?

I mean it really is infrequent that a small company changes an insurance company. Then to match that up with, how frequent is it for a lesbian to become pregnant?

Now I really don't know what the risk is, but it does seem like a little planning fixes the this one. Perhaps you can clarify?
 
Spud147 said:
Birth control prevents the catastrophic circumstance of paying for prenatal care, delivery in a hospital, and potential complications for the mother and child.
Click to expand...

That's just silly. Sorry to say it.

Even an abortion isn't catastrophic.

People don't go bankrupt because they have a child or an abortion.

They do if they undergo an extended hospital stay or brain surgery.
 
Denny Crane said:
Why should insurance cover any of that?

I have one medication I take that costs me $15. The drug company wants to charge $200+ for it. But they sent me a card that cut the price to $15. All I had to do was fill out a form on their WWW site. No hardship kind of situation. The companies have lots of these kinds of programs.

Plus, if insurance wasn't paying the $200+, they wouldn't sell much of the drug because people wouldn't pay that much. And the price would come down to a reasonable amount.

No such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

Because hospital ERs can't turn away women in labor and when they don't have prenatal care they have high risk deliveries and more complications which increase the cost even more... that cost gets passed on to government agencies who pass that on to tax payers and insurance companies who pass that on to their consumers. It's far more cost effective to provide birth control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

truebluefan
Clinton, Trump, and the battle over Planned Parenthood
Replies
0
Views
331
truebluefan
truebluefan
dviss1
Politics Conservatives Duped Again
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
rasheedfan2005
rasheedfan2005
SlyPokerDog
Kids learn important lesson about how government works
Replies
13
Views
789
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
Politics The war on women is getting disgusting
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Cippy91
Cippy91
magnifier661
Politics Look who's funding Carly Fiorina's Camp?
Replies
5
Views
649
jlprk
jlprk

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top