Betty Dodson with Carlin Ross
Better Orgasms. Better World.
Hopefully, one of these days the religious right will give up on overturning Roe v. Wade. It's ridiculous already. Making the choice to have an abortion is a wonderful moment in your life but, sometimes, it is a necessary moment. But you don't skip into the clinic thinking, "ha, I fucked around and now I don't have to accept the consequences."
And now there's proposed legislation that would require doctors to inform women that their fetus feels pain EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. In fact, they've found quite the opposite: according to leadidng experts and a new study - fetus cannot feel pain. Here's the full article:
Fetuses cannot feel pain, therefore U.S. legislation requiring doctors to tell women that the fetus will feel pain, or to provide pain relief during abortions, has no scientific basis and may harm the women involved, a leading expert contends.
"This is an unwarranted piece of legislation because there is good evidence that the fetus cannot feel pain at any stage of gestation," said Stuart Derbyshire, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Birmingham, U.K.
He authored an review of the available data on the subject in the April 15 issue of the British Medical Journal.
"I don't think the question of pain resolves the argument about abortion," said Derbyshire, who said abortion remains a social, moral and political question. However, he said that, based on the evidence, "it's illegitimate to use the possibility of pain as a way of trying to prevent abortion from occurring, because the possibility of pain doesn't exist."
Some other experts agreed.
"No one wants to inflict pain in fetuses unnecessarily, nor do physicians want to put the mother at risk by the unnecessary administration of analgesics to treat her fetus, not her," said Dr. Henry J. Ralston, a professor of anatomy and neuroscience at the University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco. "I agree with Dr. Derbyshire's primary conclusion, that 'Legal or clinical mandates to prevent pain in fetuses are based on limited evidence and may put women seeking abortion at unnecessary risk.'"
The U.S. government is presently considering legislation that would require doctors to inform women seeking abortions that "there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain."
The legislation would additionally require that a fetus of more than 22 weeks' gestational age receive anesthesia before the abortion procedure. Doctors who refuse to comply could be fined $100,000 while also losing their license and their Medicaid funding.
More than a dozen state legislatures -- including those in New York and California -- have debated such bills. Several states have already passed laws.
Congress is also considering whether to require doctors to provide anesthesia to fetuses in all cases of abortion after 22 weeks of gestational age.
But is there enough evidence to conclude that fetuses actually experience pain?
After examining the available neurological and psychological literature, Derbyshire says "no."
The neural circuitry needed to process pain is complete, if not mature, by 26 weeks' gestation, he said. "From about 26 weeks you can talk about there being a complete system in terms of biology, a link from the skin to the spinal cord to the brain, and we know that set-up is reasonably functional," Derbyshire explained.
But to properly experience pain, the mind must also be developed, something which cannot happen until after birth. The mind permits the subjectivity of pain, said the U.K. expert, who has previously served as an unpaid consultant to Planned Parenthood of Virginia and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, as well as the U.K.-based Pro-Choice Forum.
"The key thing is representational memory," Derbyshire explained. "If you want to discriminate pain from hunger, from vision, or from any other sensational experience, you need to be able to label it in some way, and that will come from interactions with the primary caregiver," -- in other words, after birth.
"I agree that pain is a complex sensory experience that requires activation of many regions of the cerebral cortex and that 'Without consciousness there can be nociception [response to noxious events] but there cannot be pain,'" Ralston said. "I do not know when that necessary neural circuitry is fully developed and functional, but it certainly is not established by 20 weeks gestational age, as encoded in legislation in several states in laws penalizing physicians for not informing mothers about pain in their fetuses."
The problem with the actions encoded in the legislation is that it could put the mother at risk, according to Derbyshire.
"It does introduce risks to the mother if we start to inject drugs to the fetus and increase the time of the procedure," Derbyshire said. "That would be unnecessary and involve unnecessary costs and risks."
They are basically trying to appease the religious right by discouraging women from getting abortions, but at the same time trying not to completely alienate women by banning abortions outright.
As a matter of principle, I am personally against abortions. I don't believe in 'accidental' pregnancies. After all, if you stick it in, you know damn well it's a crap shoot wether or not something will come out 9 months later.
But, as my signature says down below, I'm not pretentious enough to act like I know what it's like to waddle around for 9 months and then spend the rest of my life regretting lost opportunities. (Or to spend the rest of my life regretting that one lost opportunity to have a child, for that matter.) And it's not like it's easy for kids to grow up like that, with a parent resenting them as a symbol of all the things they could have been if they hadnt had a kid when they did.
In the end, for me anyways, it comes down to this: Do we want doctors performing abortions, or do we want girls with coathangers doing it themselves?
pro life is really anti abortion, i don't think most of the people who call themselves pro life really give a damn about the life of a child, but most people who say they are pro choice are not pro abortion, we just feel a woman should have the "choice" to choose, no matter what her situation.
i've never met a pro choice person who thinks abortion should be used as a means of birth control. this new "fear factor" that the right wing is using is bs. until every person who calls themselves pro life adopts a child or becomes financially resposible for that child, whether healthy or not, they have no right to judge what is a legal process.
just my personal viewpoint.
I like your viewpoint. :P It pretty much matches what I got in my signature. It's another thing I don't like about north american society (though really it isnt so bad up here in Canada). People like to stick their noses into everyone elses business while knowing nothing at all about said business. Then they get that holier than thou attitude and tell you what you should do, even though they've never been in the same situation and would probably do the same thing as you if it really came down to it.
I'm fairly pro-choice, but for the most part, not pro-abortion, except in the instance where the mother will certainly die, or to continue with the pregnancy will severly affect her health and well being in the future. Two short examples:
A friend of mine was about 7 months pregnant and for almost the entire time she had been pregnant she had been seriously ill. By time they figured out what was wrong (her body was attacking the fetus as a foreign body-when a woman gets pregnant her immune system has to almost completely shut down so it won't attack the child the way it would a disease or a transplanted organ-which is why transplant patients are put on immunosuppression therapy-when the body doesn't shut it down it can seriously inhibit the growth of the fetus and kill the mother) she was nearly in a coma. Finally she had to give the baby up-after being told even if she *COULD* go full term there was no promise the child would survive even a day because of the damage from her immune system.
The second example is a case going on right now in the EU: A polish woman is asking for an appeal of her docs decision to reject the abortion option even though he knows for her to continue in the pregnancy would mean she loses her eye sight.
Other than that, you lay down with no protection, you know what can happen. If you're adult enough to f.ck raw then you're adult enough to deal with what comes after it.
This goes the same for that idiot dude who is suing for his right to choose whether or not he should pay child support because he had unprotected sex with a woman who said she couldn't get pregnant AND that she was on the pill (if you can't have kids, what do you need the pill for?) and he doesn't want the kid. Now, in my humble opinion, he was extra special stupid for falling for that one, not just because there was the chance that she was lying, but because she probably said the same thing to a LOT of other guys and they, too, hit it raw and who knows what lil "gifts" they left behind. Not everyone will show symptoms of a disease or even really test positive for it. Some folks are just carriers.
my question would be
yes, there are very stupid people who do very stupid things, but why should a child be brought into this world because of stupid actions?
seems to be that the only one who will be hurt is the child.
There are other options besides abortion.
That, and how do you know what that child might grow up into? We are born with endless possibilities tucked away inside us. All the things that a child could or would ever become. I just can't agree with abortion for anything other than medical reasons. But like I said, I won't interfere with women who want to get one. I wouldn't even try to discourage a woman from getting one. It's their choice, and they will have to live with their decision.
Besides, it's sort of like how in high schools they teach kids about sex but don't provide a way for the kids to get condoms. The school board says that it promotes sex, when really it's going to happen anyway. All they do by not providing them is promote unprotected sex.
If we don't allow abortions, girls who absolutely do not want to be pregnant will find ways to do it themselves. And it's not like there's any shortage of ways to do it, either.
There's two sides to the condom thing. Thanks to this administration, a school can lose funding for distributing condoms.
They're doing the same thing with funding for AIDS prevention in Africa. Any group that promotes condom use over abstinance will lose much needed US funding (because those of us who live in the real world and have already figured out that promotion of abstinance and monogamy hasn't worked to date don't handle the money).
Even groups teaching the ABC approach (Abstinance, Being monogamous, Condom use) are losing funding because they promote condom use. Even though they've pointed out, if you're following A, B and C are unnecessary.
Funny how a country whose people are proud of their "sexual liberation" where people talk openly about sex and in general aren't afraid to admit that they've had more than one or two partners (or any at all) has such a sexually repressive government.
I think that if women (I'm a woman) should be allowed to have abortions and "be given the right to choose" then so should men. If we can tell a man that we don't want to have his child and kill it, then if we keep it, he should be able to decide that he doesn't want it and not pay child support. If he wants her to get an abortion and she refuses, then he should be able to sign away all of his fatherly rights and not have to deal with his spawn.
Regardless of morals over the babies life, that's the only way to give everyone the right to choose.
Men don't have that choice. Women do, talk about a double fucking standard.
Very true.
Actually, I knew a guy once who got his gf pregnant, then took her to court to prevent her from getting an abortion. Last I heard, he was a single father and he hasn't heard anything at all from her since.
Yeah, I think that makes the double standard even more apparent. If he had wanted her to get an abortion (which is the opposite) and she hadn't, he would still be responsible for child support. If he hasn't heard anything at all from her since, that means that she isn't paying child support, and just got out scott free, when if the tables were turned and he had been the one who hadn't wanted the kid, he'd be paying for it his entire life.
I was at a briefing this past Friday at the United Nations, and the speaker was from UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund). Some interesting statistics I learned were:
Every day, 100 million people around the world have sexual intercourse.
Every minute, there are 380 new pregnancies.
Of those 380, half are undesired.
Of that half, 100 end in abortion.
Of that 100, 40 are unsafe abortions.
UNFPA helps educate and assist in family planning. Interestingly, the Nixon admisintration contributed as much as all of Europe to UNFPA. Under the Reagan administration, funding dipped to 0. Why? Because of confusing family planning and abortion.
So, condoms are super important. The ABC program has been pretty successful in Thailand and Uganda. The best thing, I feel, is education. Maybe some people really don't realize they have a chance of getting pregnant, because there is a possibility of sperm entering the body even without penetration. Sperm can stay alive and warm if it on or near the vagina, and can be inserted from the woman's hands if she masturbates or touches herself later that day, etc.
I am pro-choice. Not pro-abortion, esp as a form of birth control. Mainly because it promotes irresponsibility, I think. If you aren't using condoms in the first place, you can be putting yourself at risk for more than pregnancy.
When will schools learn? I have a whole bunch of condoms in my drawer. That doesnt mean I am using them all up. (A lil sad, but true). And when I did have sex, I would be prepared and ready.
I am not saying that its that easy though. I admit to having unprotected sex. It was with someone I was seeing, and I was not on birth control. Its dumb, but I did it. Sorry for the cliche, but I was very "caught up in the moment". Only the next day did I realize how stupid it was, and how I wasn't ready for a baby.
THat's it.
A new twist
I read this great piece in the NY Times magazine this morning about the current war on contraception. They covered the usual topics but it centered mostly on Plan B (the morning after pill).
What was interesting is that they started with the Catholic reasoning behind the prohibition against any form of birth control and how they practice the rhythm method. The pill is wrong because it prevents procreation...a pretty extreme view discounted by the average person.
But now Christian groups are advocating the same Catholic prohibition against birth control arguing that the pill promotes promiscuity and sexual deviance including homosexuality (I know I don't get the connnect either). And both Catholics and Protestants are united in their lobbying efforts against the prior decision of the FDA authorizing the sale of Plan B over the counter.
Their argument is that Plan B is a form of abortion - or can be depending on a woman's cycle. If you take Plan B and you're not ovulating, then it will prevent you from ovulation - NOT an abortion. If you take Plan B while your ovulating, then it will prevent fertilization - an abortion if you believe life begins at fertilization. And if you take Plan B after your egg has been fertilized, then it will prevent it from implanting in your uterine wall - an abortion according to the AMA's definition of when life begins.
So the issue is whether you can define Plan B as an abortion considering that it may just prevent you from ovulating, prevent your egg from being fertilized, or prevent your egg from being implaned (you should know that 1/2 of all fertilized eggs don't implant as a matter of course).
I'm reading all these technical arguments and it hits me: what about that new birth control pill for men due on the market within the next year? It's simply an enzyme that prevents the sperm from being able to swim. So, your eggs are safe and sound and these technical arguments about when life begins don't matter. How is taking a pill to render your sperm useless different from pulling out? And even the Catholics back the rhythm method.
I may be missing something but it seems like we could avoid all the postering and religious propoganda and just move forward. Men could finally be in control of when they became parents and take responsibility for the birth control. And women everywhere could breathe a sigh of relief (assuming you all remember to take your pill!).
"What do you mean you forgot to take your pill? oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit!"
:P
a short prayer
Yes, when you forget your pill that's when you find your religiosity and pray that short prayer every woman has uttered at some point in her life, "God, if I'm not pregnant I swear that I'm going to clean up my life and never do anything like this again".
Unfortunately, once you get your period for several months in a row you start to lose your fear and double back on your promise to god. It's just like SlushY said, "you get caught up in the moment". It's just that simple. And it's unfortunate that we place the burden on women to say no...sometimes we're just as horney and stupid as the man lying next to us.