TRIGGER WARNING: I'm prochoice now.

[Revoltingest]

I'm wondering why men can get vasectomies on-demand without having to procure anyone else's permission to do so, but young women can't get their tubes tied on-demand with the same courtesy? The tubal ligation procedure still requires a consent form.

This should change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You should read your sources.

I did.
Your doubts are misplaced.

 

[crossfire]

I support everyone's right to make dubious decisions about their
own body. But we also need a legal system which protects
practitioners from lawsuits based upon a change of mind.

When I google up "tubal ligation lawsuits," I get a lot of "wrongful pregnancy" malpractice suits over failed tubal ligations. (Not counting the damages done by the Essure device, which is not the same as a classic tubal ligation.)

 

[Revoltingest]

When I google up "tubal ligation lawsuits," I get a lot of "wrongful pregnancy" malpractice suits over failed tubal ligations. (Not counting the damages done by the Essure device, which is not the same as a classic tubal ligation.)

Of course, legit suits for malpractice should be allowed.

 

[columbus]

I don't think one can reasonnably compare a zygote or a fetus to a child.

Yeah, and there're people who don't think you can compare a black kid to a white child, or a gay marriage to a godly marriage.

People do have opinions, you are quite right about that.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, and there're people who don't think you can compare a black kid to a white child, or a gay marriage to a godly marriage.

People do have opinions, you are quite right about that.
Tom

And I'll defend your right to be wrong to the death (of someone else).

 

[columbus]

That's good that you are pro-life now, but I really don't know if that's compatible with contemporary Christianity, at least not without a degree of heterodox interpretation.

Did you mean "pro-life" in this sentence?

The reason I ask is because I have very different responses, depending on whether you were being bitterly ironic or it was a typo.
Tom

 

[epronovost]

Yeah, and there're people who don't think you can compare a black kid to a white child, or a gay marriage to a godly marriage.

People do have opinions, you are quite right about that.
Tom

And I think your opinion is based on very weak and flawed comparison. Thus that it can be dismissed much more easily than mine and should certainly not form the basis of a prohibition imposed upon others.

PS: Did you noticed you refer more politely to white people than black people? Not that I'm accusing you of being biased or anything like that, I just thought it was a strange quirk.

 

[columbus]

And I think your opinion is based on very weak and flawed comparison.

So do Nazis and jangaweed.
They have their opinions about which humans matter. I have mine.

Thus that it can be dismissed much more easily than mine and should certainly not form the basis of a prohibition imposed upon others.

Dismissed by you. Just like the slavers of the 19th century dismissed secular humanist values. Like the inherent worth and dignity of every human being.

PS: Did you noticed you refer more politely to white people than black people? Not that I'm accusing you of being biased or anything like that, I just thought it was a strange quirk.

Sorry that you didn't recognize the vicious irony. But that's what it was.
It was rather like the people who refer to their unborn child as "our baby", but the unborn child of someone else as "a clump of cells".
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

So do Nazis and jangaweed.
They have their opinions about which humans matter. I have mine.

Dismissed by you. Just like the slavers of the 19th century dismissed secular humanist values. Like the inherent worth and dignity of every human being.


Sorry that you didn't recognize the vicious irony. But that's what it was.
It was rather like the people who refer to their unborn child as "our baby", but the unborn child of someone else as "a clump of cells".
Tom

I know you've held forth on this before, but I forget.
Under what circumstances would you (given the
power) make abortion legal or illegal?

 

[epronovost]

So do Nazis and jangaweed.
They have their opinions about which humans matter. I have mine.

Already down to Godwyn points? Wouldn't you want to hear or give more detailed reasonning for you to compare a child to a fetus or to a zygote. Also, I must precise that the Nazi were opposed to abortion though they would euthanised handicap people or children even if they were desired and if their family were willing to take care of them. That's definitely not a "pro-choice" position on abortive rights. It's not even related to abortion since we are talking about euthanasia not abortion when it comes to them.

Dismissed by you. Just like the slavers of the 19th century dismissed secular humanist values. Like the inherent worth and dignity of every human being.

I'm affraid that you are forgetting the important reasonning behind what precisely gives an inherant worth and dignity to every human being. There is also, up to a certain point a conflict between at least two humanist moral axioms there too. Perhapse if you were willing to talk about those, then you would be able to at least understand, on an academic level, how a secular humanist like me can support the right of women to have abortion for any reason up until the 15th week of pregnancy with some exceptions for afterward.

Sorry that you didn't recognize the vicious irony. But that's what it was.
It was rather like the people who refer to their unborn child as "our baby", but the unborn child of someone else as "a clump of cells".
Tom

Oh so you were trying to imply I was biased against black people without any sort of reason to do so in an effort to hurt my feelings and gaslight me because you are that kind of person. Am I correct?

 

[columbus]

I know you've held forth on this before, but I forget.

Of course you have.
Have another scotch.

Under what circumstances would you (given the
power) make abortion legal or illegal?

I've posted about this many times.
Out of the 20,000 + posts I've made on RF, at least 500 were on this topic.
Probably more.

Asking me to go back through all that because you forget things is what you want. But it isn't something I'm inclined to do. I realize that you're a rich white straight Trumpish male accustomed to telling other people what to do.
But you can use the RF search function if you actually care.
I don't think you do, so I'm not interested in doing your homework for you.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course you have.
Have another scotch.


I've posted about this many times.
Out of the 20,000 + posts I've made on RF, at least 500 were on this topic.
Probably more.

Having another scotch didn't help me memory.
What were we...uh...oh, yeah...

Asking me to go back through all that because you forget things is what you want. But it isn't something I'm inclined to do. I realize that you're a rich white straight Trumpish male accustomed to telling other people what to do.
But you can use the RF search function if you actually care.
I don't think you do, so I'm not interested in doing your homework for you.
Tom

It was a simple question, one requiring just a sentence or 2.
If fear of my skewering of your ill considered authoritarian & patriarchal
scripture thumping views prevents your answering, I understand, & will
not pursue it. I had no plan to attack...just discuss.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Did you mean "pro-life" in this sentence?

No, good catch. But I suppose being pro-choice is being pro-life in a sense

 

[Shad]

I did.
Your doubts are misplaced.

So you acknowledge that some people gave up or that the doctor's had provided options that are less drastic but were refused.

 

[crossfire]

So you acknowledge that some people gave up or that the doctor's had provided options that are less drastic but were refused.

My doing the research for this thread has helped me understand: looking at the sheer number of "wrongful pregnancies" lawsuits from failed tubal ligations, it seems that many of the conventional types of contraception are actually more effective on younger women than a tubal ligation is! (If doctors would just be up front with this instead of skirting the issue and just refusing women the procedure there wouldn't be quite as much frustration surrounding the doctors refusing it.)

Vasectomies have a much lower failure rate than tubal ligation does.

 

[crossfire]

My doing the research for this thread has helped me understand: looking at the sheer number of "wrongful pregnancies" lawsuits from failed tubal ligations, it seems that many of the conventional types of contraception are actually more effective on younger women than a tubal ligation is! (If doctors would just be up front with this instead of skirting the issue and just refusing women the procedure there wouldn't be quite as much frustration surrounding the doctors refusing it.)

Vasectomies have a much lower failure rate than tubal ligation does.

The complications from a vasectomy failure are also less life threatening than some of the complications from tubal ligation failure. (Men don't have to worry about an embryo getting stuck in their vas deferens behind the snip when failure does occur, for one.)

I read a very interesting study from India (where tubal ligation is widespread) regarding failure rates of tubal ligation, what type of failures, and side effects. I now totally agree with doctors in recommending vasectomies over tubal ligation. (I would recommend couples who are serious about not wanting any more pregnancies to have both a vasectomy and a tubal ligation. A tubal ligation should be considered as a method of birth control, not as a sterilization procedure. A hysterectomy and/or removal of ovaries is the only 100% effective mode of sterilization for women.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is messed up. My sister in law had medical issues which require operations on her reproductive system which would render her completely unable to reproduce. The operation goes well beyond getting her tubes tied. The doctors here have no issues doing the operation. She is the one that declined to go forward with the operation

The likely difference is that the doctors may have considered this procedure necessary. For some reason, when the procedure isn't regarded as strictly necessary, doctors tend to drag their heels despite the medical needs or stated opinions of women who tell them that they have no interest in having children.

These may be personal questions, but they are relevant to the issue, though obviously you don't have to answer them:

Has your sister never had children? Is she young? Is her condition long-standing?

Because facts show that when the answer to these questions is "yes", they would be significantly less likely to recommend or carry out an operation regardless of her medical history and wishes.

Really messed up. I am assuming due to the nature of the private vs public system in the UK going to a private practitioner would be costly?

Yes, although I'm not entirely sure how the cost of average private healthcare in the UK costs vs. the cost in the USA. I wouldn't be too surprised if the overall cost to the patient was either lower or roughly the same, but I'm not able to find any sources directly comparing the costs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you acknowledge that some people gave up or that the doctor's had provided options that are less drastic but were refused.

Sure.

Not sure what that has to do with your doubts about the poster's statement:

"It's very difficult to find a doctor who will tie the tubes of a young woman who has not had children."



If anything, it reinforces the statement.

 

[columbus]

That's good that you are pro-choice now, but I really don't know if that's compatible with contemporary Christianity, at least not without a degree of heterodox interpretation.

Thanks for clarification.
But you're wrong.

The anti-feticide movement is the heterodox interpretation. There's nothing in the Bible stating that feticide is even killing, much less wrongful killing.
Modern anti-feticide opinions are entirely based on modern science and modern morality.

It's really not that hard to understand if you have even a layman's understanding of the culture. For one thing, the Bible authors had a very primitive understanding of life. Things that breathe are alive, things that don't are not. Breath was considered the spirit. Stones don't have it. Corpses don't have it. Fetuses don't have it. So, you can't kill a fetus. They're not alive.

Then there's "chattel". Women and children weren't persons. They were the human property of an adult male. We don't see things that way nowadays, but the authors of the Bible did. If the father of a fetus didn't care what happened, nobody else would either.

So, you won't find anything in the Bible opposing abortion unless the father exercised his property rights, and then it's a cash payout. Similar to if someone killed a piece of livestock.

People referring to abortion as murder are the one's with the non-Scriptural interpretation. I agree with them, because I also find modern science and morality superior to that of primitive people centuries ago. But it isn't Scriptural.
Tom