This is a follow up to the locked topic,
"a memorial day for life". I was
interested in reading about the women who
have died from abortions. Someone
mentioned that they would like to see the
list split around 1973-4, b/c that is when
abortion became legal. Anyone have any
info on this? I've never found much
reliable infomation on the notorious "back
alley abortions" or "coat hangar"
incidents.
I was under the impression that recent
abortion deaths are due to anethesia side
effects. If that is the case, wouldn't
anyone who went under regardless of the
surgery become another statistic? Are we
just using deaths related to anesethia
versus the abortion itself as
propaganda?
I would also venture to guess a
correlation between the fact that most
abortions are done in abortion
clinics...Not in a hospital. If we could
get abortions recognized as the surgical
procedure that they are, and women were
truly valued, wouldn't it be best to do
this in a hospital setting?
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 10-05-06 21:03pm
birch
wrote:
this is a follow up to the
locked topic, "a memorial day for life".
I was interested in reading about the
women who have died from abortions.
Someone mentioned that they would like to
see the list split around 1973-4, b/c that
is when abortion became legal. Anyone
have any info on this? I've never found
much reliable infomation on the notorious
"back alley abortions" or "coat hangar"
incidents.
"estimates of the number
of illegal abortions in the 1950s and
1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million
per year. One analysis, extrapolating
from data from north carolina, concluded
that an estimated 829,000 illegal or
self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.
one stark
indication of the prevalence of illegal
abortion was the death toll. In 1930,
abortion was listed as the official cause
of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly
one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths
recorded in that year. the death
toll had declined to just under 1,700 by
1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most
likely because of the introduction of
antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted
more effective treatment of the infections
that frequently developed after illegal
abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths
due to illegal abortion had fallen to just
under 200, but illegal abortion still
accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed
to pregnancy and childbirth that year.
and these
are just the number that were officially
reported; the actual number was likely
much higher." http://www
.Guttmacher.Org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.Htm
l
Quote:
i was under the
impression that recent abortion deaths are
due to anethesia side effects. If that
is the case, wouldn't anyone who went
under regardless of the surgery become
another statistic? Are we just using
deaths related to anesethia versus the
abortion itself as
propaganda?
in some cases, yes.
Because the anesthesia was used during an
abortion, if the woman dies the death is
counted as a complication of the abortion
itself even though it was really her
reaction to the anesthesia. This is
similar to heart patients who die while
under anesthesia during their heart
surgery. The death is counted as a death
caused by complications of that heart
surgery or complications from whatever
illness/defect/etc the heart experienced
to necessitate surgery. I do not know
why, for certain, we do not attribute
these deaths to the anesthesia which would
be more honest and might force us to
re-examine our common ways of using
anesthesia.
From family planned perspectives, volume
27, number 4, july/august 1995 181-182:
"abortion-related deaths have become
increasingly rare since induced abortion
became legal, with the case-fatality rate
falling by about 90% between 1972 and
1987. Over that period, nonwhite women
and those in the mid-to-late second
trimester of their pregnancy are more
likely than others to have died during or
following an induced abortion. Among the
various abortion methods, curettage and
evacuation procedures are associated with
the lowest mortality risk; complications
related to anesthesia used have become the
most common cause of abortion-related
deaths. these are among the
findings of an analysis of abortion
mortality surveillance data collected by
the centers for disease control and
prevention (cdc).
The cded data reflect deaths resulting
from a direct complication of abortion, an
indirect complication or the aggravation
by an induced abortion of a preexisting
condition...The case-fatality rate for
legal induced abortion over the entire
1972-1987 period (1.3 deaths per 100,000
legal abortion procedures) masks the
precipitous decline in abortion-related
mortality, from 4.1 deaths per 100,000
abortion procedures to 0.4 per
100,000...Complications of
anesthesia, which had represented the
smallest proportion of deaths (16%) in the
period 1972-1976, became an increasingly
important risk factor in 1977-1982 and
were the most common cause of
abortion-related mortality in 1983-1987,
accounting for 29% of all deaths."
Quote:
i would also
venture to guess a correlation between the
fact that most abortions are done in
abortion clinics...Not in a hospital.
If we could get abortions recognized as
the surgical procedure that they are, and
women were truly valued, wouldn't it be
best to do this in a hospital
setting?
indeed it would. In
fact, the study quoted above went on to
state in its observations that shifting
abortion procedures to hospitals would
help to cut down on deaths due to
anesthesia complications as the hospital
staff would be the most knowledgeable to
handle the complication and better equiped
to do so.
Thank you for bringing this up. However,
in the "a memorial day for life" thread, I
stated that the true tragedy and waste of
human life are those women, who mostly
reside in third world nations or where
abortion is illegal, who lose their lives
from unsafe, self induction because they
do not want to continue the unintended
pregnancy. I am sure that those who read
my comments knew full well which group of
women, which loss of life, I was alluding
to and yet still posted only the numbers
of women who have died from complications
in industrialized nations where abortions
are legal.
Where abortions are currently illegal
which is what some people would like to
see happen locally, women .D.I.E as
a direct result of not having the
reproductive health care that they need.
"every year about 210 million women
throughout the world discover that they
are pregnant when they miss a menstrual
period or have a positive pregnancy
test...Worldwide, 15% of pregnant women
spontaneously miscarry or experience a
stillbirth. another 22% end their pregnancy by
abortion. Thus, only about two-thirds of
known pregnancies each year - 133 million
- result in the birth of a
baby...However, people’s attempts
to reconcile sexual intercourse and the
desire for children do not take place in a
vacuum. The degree of control that a
woman has over whether she has sexual
intercourse and over when and how many
children she has is often affected by her
age, cultural and religious background,
and social and economic position in
society...An estimated 46 million women
throughout the world have
induced abortions each year.1 of these
women, 36 million
(or 78%) live in developing countries, and
10 million
(22%) in developed countries.2
worldwide, about 11% of all women having
abortions
live in africa, 58% in asia and 9% in
latin america and
the caribbean (chart 4.1, page 26).3 the
remainder live in
europe (17%) and elsewhere in the
developed world—
australia, canada, japan, new zealand and
the united
states (5%)...In developing regions
(excluding china), 330 deaths
occur per 100,000 abortions, a mortality rate
that is hundreds
of times higher than the rate in
developed countries.
the rate is highest—an estimated 680
deaths per 100,000
procedures—in africa (table 5b).17
the who estimates that of the
approximately 600,000
pregnancy-related deaths occurring each
year around the
world, 13% (or 78,000) are related to
complications resulting
from unsafe abortion. In latin america,
as many as
21% of maternal deaths are estimated to be
associated with
unsafe abortion.18
the abortifacient methods most likely to
be life-threatening
are those that involve penetration with
sharp objects
(which can perforate the uterus), the
insertion into the
cervix of contaminated materials and the
use of unclean
instruments. Unsterilized catheters, for
example, are a common
source of infection...After having an
unsafe abortion, some women experience
no side effects or only mild
complications. Others, however,
experience severe trauma, such as tears in
the cervix, perforation
of the uterus, fever, infection (sepsis),
septic shock
and severe hemorrhaging. Women with these
conditions
require medical attention, but many are
unable to obtain
the care they need."
http://www.Guttm
acher.Org/pubs/sharing.Pdf#search=%22numbe
r%20of%20women%20who%20die%20from%20illega
l%20abortions%20world%20wide%22
the above is from a phenomenal report. I
suggest that everyone read it in its
entirety. The report also found that
legalization decreased maternal
mortality and made the more common, local
abortion procedures safer for those
obtaining them.
The point that I was trying to make on the
other thread is that these are actual
women with real lives who are dying,
daily, because they could not access safe,
legal abortion services .O.R
medical care following an unsafe
self-induced abortion. That loss of
human life is tragic. An abortion of a
non-sentient fetus is .N.O.T the equivalent
of the death of the woman, the actual
person. The ending of potential is not
the same as ending the actual.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2597 Location: ,
Thanks: 17
Thanked:13
Posted: 10-05-06 21:59pm
jenn_smithson
wrote:
Quote:
i would also
venture to guess a correlation between the
fact that most abortions are done in
abortion clinics...Not in a hospital.
If we could get abortions recognized as
the surgical procedure that they are, and
women were truly valued, wouldn't it be
best to do this in a hospital
setting?
indeed it would. In
fact, the study quoted above went on to
state in its observations that shifting
abortion procedures to hospitals would
help to cut down on deaths due to
anesthesia complications as the hospital
staff would be the most knowledgeable to
handle the complication and better equiped
to do so.
interesting point. If social abortion is
a normal surgical procedure that is legal
why it is not done in hospitals? All
ob/gyns should be performing abortions
everywhere. Abortion became legal since
1973, that's a long time ago. Jenn can
you choose to have your social abortion at
a hospital?
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4037 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 141
Thanked:13
Posted: 10-05-06 22:24pm
nightangel73
wrote:
jenn_smithson
wrote:
Quote:
i would also
venture to guess a correlation between the
fact that most abortions are done in
abortion clinics...Not in a hospital.
If we could get abortions recognized as
the surgical procedure that they are, and
women were truly valued, wouldn't it be
best to do this in a hospital
setting?
indeed it would. In
fact, the study quoted above went on to
state in its observations that shifting
abortion procedures to hospitals would
help to cut down on deaths due to
anesthesia complications as the hospital
staff would be the most knowledgeable to
handle the complication and better equiped
to do so.
interesting point. If social abortion is
a normal surgical procedure that is legal
why it is not done in hospitals? All
ob/gyns should be performing abortions
everywhere. Abortion became legal since
1973, that's a long time ago. Jenn can
you choose to have your social abortion at
a hospital?
what do you think those reasons are,
nightangel? I think I know the
"prochoice" point of view on this is, but
before I say more i'm curious for your
opinions.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4037 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 141
Thanked:13
Posted: 10-05-06 22:31pm
Thank you very much jenn for your imput.
I admit I was pursuing an egocentric point
of view as I was only considering these
united states. I indeed forget that
geographic boundaries are pointless lines
drawn on a global world and this issue
effects all women. I will read up more
on this.
|
Carifairy
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 2610 Location: Charlotte n.c.
Thanks: 12
Thanked:0
Posted: 10-05-06 22:33pm
Abortion can be safely done in an
ambulatory surgical facility, even with
anestehsia.
Many surgeries are done in asf, and they
are done with anesthesia.. The truth is
that some women react badly to anesthesia,
and sometimes this cannot be helped.
In nc, where I live, all aborition clinics
must be ambulatory surgical facility
rated.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2597 Location: ,
Thanks: 17
Thanked:13
Posted: 10-06-06 06:19am
birch
wrote:
nightangel73
wrote:
jenn_smithson
wrote:
Quote:
i would also
venture to guess a correlation between the
fact that most abortions are done in
abortion clinics...Not in a hospital.
If we could get abortions recognized as
the surgical procedure that they are, and
women were truly valued, wouldn't it be
best to do this in a hospital
setting?
indeed it would. In
fact, the study quoted above went on to
state in its observations that shifting
abortion procedures to hospitals would
help to cut down on deaths due to
anesthesia complications as the hospital
staff would be the most knowledgeable to
handle the complication and better equiped
to do so.
interesting point. If social abortion
is a normal surgical procedure that is
legal why it is not done in hospitals?
All ob/gyns should be performing abortions
everywhere. Abortion became legal
since 1973, that's a long time ago.
Jenn can you choose to have your social
abortion at a
hospital?
what do you think those reasons are,
nightangel? I think I know the
"prochoice" point of view on this is, but
before I say more i'm curious for your
opinions.
because society sees abortion for what it
is, killing of innocent unborn children.
|
yupmeagain
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 05 Oct 2006 Posts: 94
Posted: 10-06-06 08:21am
Edit for abusive post
|
Carifairy
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 2610 Location: Charlotte n.c.
Thanks: 12
Thanked:0
Posted: 10-06-06 10:36am
It is always cheaper to use 'ambulatory
surgical facilities' or 'clinics' than
hospitals, that is for sure...
|
yupmeagain
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 05 Oct 2006 Posts: 94
Posted: 10-06-06 14:36pm
nightangel73
wrote:
because society sees
abortion for what it is, killing of
innocent unborn
children.
prove a fetus is innocent, edit for
abusive post
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4037 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 141
Thanked:13
Posted: 10-06-06 16:13pm
nightangel73
wrote:
because society sees
abortion for what it is, killing of
innocent unborn
children.
does this mean, in your opinion, that
because there is a large stigma on the
procedure brought about by society, women
are relegated to receiving substandard
care?
Carifary, how do I find out which clinics
are rated as asf's? And what exactly
does this mean?
Do you think that b/c these clinics are
rated such that means they are prepared in
case of major complications from the
abortion surgery?
I remember that I was told if there was a
complication or unforseen circumstance, I
would be taken to the hospital.
I'm trying to look at it outside of the
cost...I don't think there should be an
issue of cost when someone's health is at
stake. (of course that's not the way it
is...This is just hypothetical.)
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 10-06-06 18:05pm
birch
wrote:
carifary, how do I find out
which clinics are rated as asf's? And
what exactly does this mean?
ambulatory surgical
centers/facilities have to have several
specifications that deal with the width of
the doors so that you can carry a
stretcher out, a drive through for an
ambulance, and other specific requirements
about staffing, equipment, inspections,
etc. Plus with recent trap laws, these
requirements have become even more
stringent not to protect the health or
lives of anyone working in the facility
but in attempts to close the facility
because they suddenly do not comply with
the laws.
Quote:
do you think that
b/c these clinics are rated such that
means they are prepared in case of major
complications from the abortion
surgery?
they can be or it means
that they are capable of admitting an ems
crew to quickly get you to a nearby
hospital.
Quote:
i don't think
there should be an issue of cost when
someone's health is at stake. (of
course that's not the way it is...This is
just
hypothetical.)
cost is important,
though, from a different perspective.
Other countries with legalized abortion
and liberal abortion laws actually provide
funding through the health care system for
abortions. When this is the case, the
procedures are almost always done in a
hospital just like any other outpatient
medical procedure.
In the us, making sure that almost no
abortions can be provided by public
funding almost does the same thing as
taking away the right to choose for
impoverished women. If you are worried
about putting food on the table, you are
less likely to have the money it costs to
obtain an abortion (of course, you are
also less likely to be able to raise a
child in those circumstances). So, if
you become pregnant, you often must rely
on specific foundations in your state to
help you obtain an abortion (these funds
are usually called reproductive equity
funds). However, if the foundation you
turn to for help has already run out of
money or you are not impoverished enough
to qualify for their guidelines, you must
then start borrowing money, asking for pay
extensions at work, taking out loans,
getting a credit card, selling your few
possessions, and might even have to move
in with someone else for a while to be
able to save up the money for your
abortion.
The only abortions that medicaid/medicare
will pay for are if your life is in
danger. So, if you have diabetes and the
pregnancy is already threatening your
health, you cannot have the abortion until
you are literally taken to the hospital in
a diabetic coma (this actually happened to
a client of ours) or are on the verge of
death.
If you cannot get together the money, many
women set on obtaining abortions turn to
self induction at that time which can be
very dangerous. With my proximity to
mexico, we see a lot of women, already, who
have either gone or sent for the pills
from mexico and come to us to make sure
that everything was expelled from the
uterus and to get antibiotics so that they
don't get sick. A few women are starting
to turn to the old catheter abortion
method. This is where a local helps the
woman miscarry by inserting a thick rubber
catheter into the uterus and then packs
the vagina with cotton balls to keep it in
place. After a day or so, the catheter
will irritate the uterus enough to begin
contractions to try and expel it. .However, the
catheter is also an all too often good
conducter of bacteria, viruses, and germs
that travel up the catheter directly into
the uterus. Most of the women who induce
using this method wind up in the hospital
from the infections caused by the
introduction of the catheter. Even a
clean, never before used catheter will
introduce some new material into the
uterus where it may cause an infection.
It is highly dangerous and many
women die from it. but, when
you're desperate and poor, you are left
with few options.
We are starting to see an increase of
patients who have self-induced over the
past few years even though abortions are
legal. Should roe be overturned, we are
expecting these numbers to rise
exponentially.
Making abortion illegal has never stopped
them from occurring. It has only made
them more dangerous to obtain for the
women and as a direct result, more women
die than need be. Whether you like it or
not, whether you believe in it or not,
some women do need to obtain abortions and
that is not going to stop until all
pregnancies are planned pregnancies and no
one ever experiences an unintended
pregnancy.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2597 Location: ,
Thanks: 17
Thanked:13
Posted: 10-06-06 18:24pm
jenn_smithson
wrote:
it is highly
dangerous and many women die from it.[/b]
but, when you're desperate and poor, you
are left with few options.
it sure is very dangerous. If i'm
desperate and poor then I don't have sex
so I don't get pregnant. That's what I
did when I was a student and had no money.
Jenn medicaid don't pay for abortion but
it does have a good plan if you are
pregnant isn't it?
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 10-06-06 18:43pm
nightangel73
wrote:
jenn_smithson
wrote:
it is highly
dangerous and many women die from it.[/b]
but, when you're desperate and poor, you
are left with few options.
it sure is very dangerous. If i'm
desperate and poor then I don't have sex
so I don't get pregnant. That's what I
did when I was a student and had no money.
congratulations.
However, not all women want to remain
abstinent or are in positions to do so.
When I became pregnant, I was married.
Although we had very little money and were
struggling to keep a float, should I have
abstained? And, if that is the
suggestion, what are some ways of getting
my husband to agree to such a thing (this
is assuming I would even want to myself)?
Quote:
jenn medicaid
don't pay for abortion but it does have a
good plan if you are pregnant isn't
it?
that's up to your
interpretation of the word "good." the
bare minimum might be seen as "good" if
you have no other health care but I doubt
that you would gladly trade your place
(assuming you have health insurance or
access to good health care) with someone
who has medicaid/medicare. Further,
after birth is a whole different story.
After birth, you have six weeks to have a
contraceptive consultation and I believe
that you get one cycle of a hormonal
method (in texas). After that, you pay
for the rest unless you can get on title
xx funding. Not every woman can get on
the funding though so they end up not
being protected by a reliable method
shortly after birth.
Also, with the birth depending on your
state, anesthesia may not be included.
So, you could be forced to go through
natural childbirth even if you are in very
great pain because medicaid will not pay
for the anesthesia or any other pain
relieving drugs but tylenol. One of our
clients had to call her father to bring
his credit card to the hospital just to
get an epidural because medicaid refused
to pay for it and they wouldn't administer
one until she payed for it in advance.
Then, shortly after you get home, your
health insurance through medicaid ends.
If you have any long lasting complications
or problems with your pregnancy, you may
have to pay for them out of pocket and for
people on medicaid, that is almost
impossible to do. Then, your child may
also lose their health coverage unless
they qualify for chip or another similar
program. Either way, expect that your
child will be uncovered and that you will
pay out of pocket everytime they become
sick.
Wic is currently doing a big campaign to
encourage breast feeding because they are
tired of paying out so much. However,
what little you do get from wic does not
actually fully feed you or any of your
children for that month. It is a
supplement program only to make sure that
some, however little,
nutrition is present.
If you do get to go on welfare, you can
only draw for a certain period of time.
After that time, whether you can find
childcare or not, you have to go to work
to continue receiving some help. There
is no guarantee that childcare will be
available in your area at a price you can
afford or that you will receive help from
your state with childcare. Most people
do not.
Many women who cannot afford an abortion
feel that they are being forced to keep
the pregnancy while at the same time, they
are not given the proper care needed
during the pregnancy or enough assistance
to survive off of. With the introduction
of a child, a family living off of public
assistance is also plunged further into
poverty thanks to new child cap laws in
most states. These laws punish families
for having more children by freezing the
amount of aid that they can get. So, if
you have two children and you are on
public assistance (even if you are also
working full time) and you become pregnant
again, when you have the child, you will
basically be trying to feed four people
instead of three on the same amount of
money. In short, each additional child
will make you poorer and less able to care
for the family you already have. These
laws punish poor people for keeping
pregnancies and most of these laws were
introduced and voted in by so-called
"prolife" politicians.
If you want people to keep their
unintended pregnancies, they have to know
that they will have the resources
available to provide for their families.
If you start limiting those resources,
more women choose to obtain an abortion
because the abortion is much, much cheaper
than trying to raise another child while
living in poverty.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2597 Location: ,
Thanks: 17
Thanked:13
Posted: 10-07-06 12:13pm
jenn_smithson
wrote:
nightangel73
wrote:
jenn_smithson
wrote:
it is highly
dangerous and many women die from it.[/b]
but, when you're desperate and poor, you
are left with few options.
it sure is very dangerous. If i'm
desperate and poor then I don't have sex
so I don't get pregnant. That's what I
did when I was a student and had no money.
congratulations.
However, not all women want to remain
abstinent or are in positions to do so.
When I became pregnant, I was married.
Although we had very little money and were
struggling to keep a float, should I have
abstained? And, if that is the
suggestion, what are some ways of getting
my husband to agree to such a thing (this
is assuming I would even want to myself)?
Quote:
jenn medicaid
don't pay for abortion but it does have a
good plan if you are pregnant isn't
it?
that's up to your
interpretation of the word "good." the
bare minimum might be seen as "good" if
you have no other health care but I doubt
that you would gladly trade your place
(assuming you have health insurance or
access to good health care) with someone
who has medicaid/medicare. Further,
after birth is a whole different story.
After birth, you have six weeks to have a
contraceptive consultation and I believe
that you get one cycle of a hormonal
method (in texas). After that, you pay
for the rest unless you can get on title
xx funding. Not every woman can get on
the funding though so they end up not
being protected by a reliable method
shortly after birth.
Also, with the birth depending on your
state, anesthesia may not be included.
So, you could be forced to go through
natural childbirth even if you are in very
great pain because medicaid will not pay
for the anesthesia or any other pain
relieving drugs but tylenol. One of our
clients had to call her father to bring
his credit card to the hospital just to
get an epidural because medicaid refused
to pay for it and they wouldn't administer
one until she payed for it in advance.
Then, shortly after you get home, your
health insurance through medicaid ends.
If you have any long lasting complications
or problems with your pregnancy, you may
have to pay for them out of pocket and for
people on medicaid, that is almost
impossible to do. Then, your child may
also lose their health coverage unless
they qualify for chip or another similar
program. Either way, expect that your
child will be uncovered and that you will
pay out of pocket everytime they become
sick.
Wic is currently doing a big campaign to
encourage breast feeding because they are
tired of paying out so much. However,
what little you do get from wic does not
actually fully feed you or any of your
children for that month. It is a
supplement program only to make sure that
some, however little,
nutrition is present.
If you do get to go on welfare, you can
only draw for a certain period of time.
After that time, whether you can find
childcare or not, you have to go to work
to continue receiving some help. There
is no guarantee that childcare will be
available in your area at a price you can
afford or that you will receive help from
your state with childcare. Most people
do not.
Many women who cannot afford an abortion
feel that they are being forced to keep
the pregnancy while at the same time, they
are not given the proper care needed
during the pregnancy or enough assistance
to survive off of. With the
introduction of a child, a family living
off of public assistance is also plunged
further into poverty thanks to new child
cap laws in most states. These laws
punish families for having more children
by freezing the amount of aid that they
can get. So, if you have two children
and you are on public assistance (even if
you are also working full time) and you
become pregnant again, when you have the
child, you will basically be trying to
feed four people instead of three on the
same amount of money. In short, each
additional child will make you poorer and
less able to care for the family you
already have. These laws punish poor
people for keeping pregnancies and most of
these laws were introduced and voted in by
so-called "prolife" politicians.
If you want people to keep their
unintended pregnancies, they have to know
that they will have the resources
available to provide for their families.
If you start limiting those resources,
more women choose to obtain an abortion
because the abortion is much, much cheaper
than trying to raise another child while
living in
poverty.
well if you had little money and you know
that with being married you couldn't
afford an abortion, nor a child then you
shouldn't get married until at least you
can afford for an abortion. Why it is so
hard for people to wait? I mean it is not
like it is a forever wait. I am amazed at
how people can't do small sacrifices in
life. In fact I remember having a good
sexual life without intercourse. Of
course it would have been even better if I
included intercourse but hey you know
sometimes small sacrifices has to be made
for a better cause.
Now I do think in america birth control
should be free of charge for everybody.
Right now I am having a hard time trying
to find a bc pill that my stomach can
handle because the one that doesnt make me
sick my insurance don't want to cover it
and it is expensive to the point it is
much cheaper for me to get pregnant.
About wellfare I know in puerto rico where
i'm from it works wonders and I am
confused cause it is supposed to be the
same system as here. You are poor you get
welfare and for everytime you get pregnant
again, it is more food stamps and more
wic. So poor woman who really don't care
to work like the idea of having
addictional food stamps and wic with
having extra children. It is not a great
life but hey they don't want to work so
they prefer that. Well childcare is cheap
in the island too so I guess that helps
too. I tell you I see people in pr living
on welfare and I see they have direct tv
anthenas in their homes and i'm like wow
my parents couldn't afford that. That's
how it is.
|
Carifairy
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 2610 Location: Charlotte n.c.
Thanks: 12
Thanked:0
Posted: 10-07-06 13:37pm
I would rather see a woman have an
abortion then be on welfare for years, it
is abuse if the system.
Birth control should be free, and the
local health department usually is good
about that..
Have you checked out the ehalth
department, or planne dparenthood?
Have you considered an iud? One time fee
= up to 10 years of birth control!
|
yupmeagain
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 05 Oct 2006 Posts: 94
Posted: 10-07-06 15:06pm
carifairy
wrote:
i would rather see a woman
have an abortion then be on welfare for
years, it is abuse if the
system.
i'd rather see a woman have a choice than
be told she has to abort because she is
poor.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2597 Location: ,
Thanks: 17
Thanked:13
Posted: 10-07-06 18:46pm
carifairy
wrote:
i would rather see a woman
have an abortion then be on welfare for
years, it is abuse if the system.
Birth control should be free, and the
local health department usually is good
about that..
Have you checked out the ehalth
department, or planne dparenthood?
Have you considered an iud? One time fee
= up to 10 years of birth
control!
no I have not check the health department.
I am busy woman and I jwant to get the
pills at a local pharmacy 2 minutes from
my house than traveling downtown or far
away like planned parenthood to get them.
My insurance only covers generics so i'm
working with my doctor and i'm trying
different generic brands to see which one
fits me. This last one seem to not make
me sick so far so I have fingers crossed.
Iud is not an option as it is not
recommended if you never have been
pregnant and I do want to mess up with my
uterus, there is risk of uterine
perforation, I know that's very rare but
you never know. I'm already will have
high risk pregnancies for my age so I
don't want to take any chances.
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 10-07-06 19:18pm
Did you know that if you go to the
hospital and have a procedure done or even
an out-patient surgery center and cannot
afford to pay the bill that in most cases
that if you do a financial report that
they can adjust off anywhere from 10% to
100% of the bill, it has been done to
several people that I have known!
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3224 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 82
Thanked:114
Posted: 10-08-06 09:09am
People are allowed to get married whenever
they want maybe if 85% of the jobs paid
well we would all be able to support are
families. I live in canada and the only
jobs available are minimum pay 7.75$/hr
when rent is 700$+.
The sexual education they give down here
is crap its all about pro-abstinence not
on how to use b/c, if I would have been
told that penciilian could reduce the
protection of the pill I wouldnt have
gotten pregnant.
So unless you can change the world dont
tell people what they need to do!!!
What we do need is
proper sex education
better jobs that pay more
better health care world wide
no prejudism (not only poor people
abort/keep the child)
womans rights
unless some of this happen pregnancy rates
will go higher and abortion rates will go
higher.
So if your pro-life stop health forum and
do something about it, I hate when people
health forum and dont do something about
it cause I sure as hell do (i donate my
time to local teen mom homes and help them
out)
