Abortion news and discussion

[noxiousdog]

The reason there are no male equivalents is because no male would put up with anything close to that for routine birth control. "Here, let's put a plastic and copper thing up your penis and you can leave it in there for a few years so you can have sex. Or maybe we'll stick some kind of flat plastic thing in your nuts to do the same. Whatever fits your fancy."

Why would guys be any more opposed to that than a vasectomy?

edit: If I hadn't already been snipped I'd absolutely do something like that.

[LawBeefaroni]

I probably should have excluded urethral sounding fetishists in my blanket statement.

[Fitzy]

However women also have more options, including hormonal and IUDs, both of which are highly effective at preventing pregnancy and are safe for most women, but have zero male equivalents at the moment.

Surgically implanting a two-inch, timed release mechanism in your body isn't the same thing as throwing on a jimmy hat. You're committing to no kids for 2-5 years, you're spending several hundred dollars (if it's even covered), and you're undergoing surgery.

The reason there are no male equivalents is because no male would put up with anything close to that for routine birth control. "Here, let's put a plastic and copper thing up your penis and you can leave it in there for a few years so you can have sex. Or maybe we'll stick some kind of flat plastic thing in your nuts to do the same. Whatever fits your fancy."

I never compared either IUDs or hormonal methods of birth control to condoms. In fact, I specifically said these we unique for women.

I think the Planned Parenthood birth control site might be of useful reading for many people. There have been advancements in the last few years. IUDs especially are way better then even a decade ago when my wife and I were considering options.

If there was a male equivalent of what an IUD is today, I'd have gladly gone for it. Five minute insertion, immediately usable, immediately reversible, nearly the same price, low side effects.

[LawBeefaroni]

However women also have more options, including hormonal and IUDs, both of which are highly effective at preventing pregnancy and are safe for most women, but have zero male equivalents at the moment.

Surgically implanting a two-inch, timed release mechanism in your body isn't the same thing as throwing on a jimmy hat. You're committing to no kids for 2-5 years, you're spending several hundred dollars (if it's even covered), and you're undergoing surgery.

The reason there are no male equivalents is because no male would put up with anything close to that for routine birth control. "Here, let's put a plastic and copper thing up your penis and you can leave it in there for a few years so you can have sex. Or maybe we'll stick some kind of flat plastic thing in your nuts to do the same. Whatever fits your fancy."

I never compared either IUDs or hormonal methods of birth control to condoms. In fact, I specifically said these we unique for women.

I never said you did. I was referring to your statement that there are zero male equivalents. That's because we don't need male equivalents. We can stick stuff in women.

[Fitzy]

I never said you did. I was referring to your statement that there are zero male equivalents. That's because we don't need male equivalents. We can stick stuff in women.

I suspect it's also easier to stop 1-2 eggs a month than to stop millions of sperm per ejaculate.

Though I'm not going to deny that male wimpiness plays a part

[Zarathud]

Wrong. It's mechanically easier to stop the leaky hose than leaky plumbing.

It's not just male wimpiness, but not bearing the full consequences.

Women carry the child to term and then usually end up the parent after an unexpected pregnancy. That's not just me piling on Rip, but fact. Men complaining about the possibility of paying for child support is ridiculous when there's a whole lot more involved in raising a child.

That's why it's usual -- and too often expected -- that women go to greater lengths than men in modifying reproductive outcomes.

[Paingod]

Men complaining about the possibility of paying for child support is ridiculous when there's a whole lot more involved in raising a child.

Men complain about child support often because they want no part of being a parent in those situations. They have no intention of being any more involved than the state requires them to be in many cases, and only warm up to the idea when they realize they can't escape it. Some embrace it, but I think they're a rare few. Men have no biological imperative to become fathers. Their biological imperative is to throw as much semen as possible at anything that walks as they can - then they're shocked when it works.

I was a willing participant in getting my wife pregnant because it seemed like the right thing and I wanted a kid with her - but when it actually happened I was dumbfounded. I went through no biological change to adapt to the new situation and had to learn to be a daddy. It did not happen at a chemical level.

A large part of being a woman seems focused on reproduction - monthly cycles, the 'biological clock', baby fever when they get too close to one, etc. Men ... men pretty much just ejaculate because it feels good, not to try and make babies.

I'm not suggesting men aren't equally responsible for pregnancy; they are. I'm just explaining why the first thing they do is complain about child support. For a guy, having seen it a few times, it's basically financial ruin and 18 years of being dragged around by the nose by a woman they want nothing to do with. Even if they end up liking being a daddy, the rest is complete shit.

Wrong. It's mechanically easier to stop the leaky hose than leaky plumbing.

Wrong. As far as I can read, it's less likely that a woman will become pregnant after her tubes are tied than it is that a man will suddenly discover that they're not quite as sterile as they should have been after a vasectomy. That's just the plumbing end. Chemically, women's bodies are better geared to be controlled by artificial hormones to help prevent pregnancy - they have built-in safeguards that can be activated and fooled to stop it. Men have none of that. Both are equally capable of using physical means of birth control, but nothing is 100%.

[Jeff V]

This thread has become disturbingly a-political. Mods, can this be moved to EBG?

[Fitzy]

Wrong. It's mechanically easier to stop the leaky hose than leaky plumbing.

It's not just male wimpiness, but not bearing the full consequences.

Women carry the child to term and then usually end up the parent after an unexpected pregnancy. That's not just me piling on Rip, but fact. Men complaining about the possibility of paying for child support is ridiculous when there's a whole lot more involved in raising a child.

That's why it's usual -- and too often expected -- that women go to greater lengths than men in modifying reproductive outcomes.

I really am trying, but I have no idea what this means. I mean, I assume you're saying a male system is a hose and the female system is plumbing? I don't think the metaphor works though.

In order to create an effective male pill, you have to modify the male chemical balance in such a way as to stop the production of millions of sperm. All of the time. Something that never happens in the male body naturally. Even vasectomies where they cut the tube where not fully effective so they started burning or tying off the ends. Sperm yearn to be free!!!

The female pill only had to stop 1-2 eggs per month. Something that the female body already had a mechanism in place to do.

I would guess that sexism played a part in the rapid development of female birth control as compared to male. However, there is a complexity issue that plays a part. They've been promising a male "pill" for decades and keep failing.

I fully agree that women, unfairly, bear the brunt of child raising and far and away the pregnancy. The second is biology and for now there is literally nothing that can be done.

I have no idea what would happen if a convenient birth control came out for men. Something that was reversible and long lasting. Maybe they'd rush out to get it in order to avoid the responsibility of child care costs. Maybe they'd ignore it and leave it on the women. From my own experience, I would have gladly used it.

Edit: For JeffV

It's Trump's fault!

[Zarathud]

Seriously?

Have you never done any plumbing? It's mechanically easier to apply a patch than to dig under the sink with a wrench to replace/block a pipe. Effectiveness might be the same once you're done, but that's not my point. A surgical snip is much less intrusive than a tubal.

The biology involved isn't affected by volume. Women don't just take the pill in the week before ovulation -- they have to take it every day. In fact, there was even a recent clinical study for a male hormonal birth control shot with less severe side effects than for women.

"These risks of fertility damage are not fatal risks like the women endure with their birth control [potentially fatal strokes and blood clots]," said Lloyd. "You have to compare what women are doing in terms of taking hormones with what men are doing in terms of taking hormones. Are they taking their life in their hands when they take the hormones? Women are. And that needs to be put right up in front when considering the risk."

Contraceptives were developed for women instead of men back in the 1950s, even though it was more complicated. Why? The burden of preventing pregnancy has fallen upon women for generations.

[Chrisoc13]

I'm not sure why this turned into a plumbing argument since plumbing simply doesn't really apply to the human body. Barrier contraceptives are easier for men due to logistics, but when it comes to hormonal contraceptives it is much easier to halt ovulation and increase cervical mucous with minimal side effects (aka the pill) than it is to use hormonal both control to sperm production with minimal side effects.

You can try and turn it into a sexist debate but that's just not the truth and doesn't fit the facts. It's biology, not society that created the pill. There are side effects from birth control yes, and women bear the load. But even though you may say birth control was designed for women in the 1950s implying that it should have been designed for men and that it only want because sexism it doesn't change the fact that hormonally the process in women is much easier to alter due to a built in process already present to stop ovulation that ocps manipulate. There is no equivalent process in men to manipulate. Your argument isn't based in reality.

That doesn't change the fact that women bear all the burden of pregnancy and child birth with many associated issues. No argument there. But your plumbing argument is completely not founded in reality.

It's my field btw, I'm a urologist.

[Zarathud]

I'm no doctor, but my point about plumbing goes to surgical intervention, not hormonal modification. Dangly bits vs. internal chassis.

Apparently there is a hormonal process for men. The articles I read suggested science looked only at manipulating women's hormones and not men -- and it was a questionable decision in hindsight.

This whole tangent goes back to Rip saying male and female contraceptives are effectively the same option. That's my beef, but science and history are interesting.

[gilraen]

The whole "plumbing" argument aside - logistically condoms are really simple, sure. But if the guy decides that he doesn't want to wear a condom (with whatever whiny excuse he comes up with), the woman is not always in a position to make him or walk away from the sexual encounter.

[Chrisoc13]

I'm no doctor, but my point about plumbing goes to surgical intervention, not hormonal modification. Dangly bits vs. internal chassis.

Apparently there is a hormonal process for men. The articles I read suggested science looked only at manipulating women's hormones and not men -- and it was a questionable decision in hindsight.

This whole tangent goes back to Rip saying male and female contraceptives are effectively the same option. That's my beef, but science and history are interesting.

The is and has been ongoing work in terms of male birth control. It's just not as simple and nothing has been as successful with minimal side effects like birth control. Females have a relatively simple solution, just trick the body to not ovulate. The system for halting ovulation is already in place biologically. The same is not true of men. There is no system in place to halt sperm production. Eventually we will get there to be able to have a make answer, but it isn't an either or situation in terms of birth control. It wasn't that they had to make a choice make or female, it's that female is so much more straight forward.

But yes you are correct, vasectomy is much easier, less invasive, and a much more simple procedure than tubal ligation. IBut don't be crazy, take a couple of light days afterwards you crazy people

Anyways not really pertinent to this abortion discussion at this point, haha sorry for the derail.

[Isgrimnur]

Texas

Texas approved new rules this week requiring health care facilities that perform abortions to bury the fetal remains instead of disposing of them in a sanitary landfill like other forms of biological medical waste, ending months of contentious debate and dismaying abortion rights groups.

The rules, which go into effect on Dec. 19, mandate that aborted fetal tissue must be buried regardless of how long it has been gestating. The rules state it can either be buried directly after an abortion has been performed or it can be buried or scattered after it has been incinerated. Fetal remains can also be steam disinfected before burial, according to the guideline.

The rule was quietly proposed in July at the direction of Gov. Greg Abbott, according to The Texas Tribune, shortly after the Supreme Court struck down parts of a Texas law that could have sharply cut the number of abortion clinics in the state, particularly those outside large urban areas.
...
According to the rules, aborted fetal tissue must be handled like a deceased person and treated “using the process of cremation, entombment, burial, or placement in a niche or by using the process of cremation followed by placement of the ashes in a niche, grave, or scattering of ashes as authorized by law.”
...
One concern — voiced by the Texas Medical Association and the Texas Hospital Association, among others — was if the proposal would require women who miscarried at home to transport their fetal remains to a health care facility to arrange for burial.

“We made certain changes to the rules along the way, including adding language to make clear that these rules don’t apply to miscarriages or abortions that occur at home, and adding language to clarify that birth or death certificate issuance is not required for proper disposition under the rules,” Ms. Williams said.
...
Texas is not the first state to approve mandatory burial for fetal remains. Indiana and Louisiana passed similar measures this year but neither state has put the new rules into effect amid continuing legal challenges, said Gavin Broady of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed a lawsuit against the rules in Louisiana. Indiana’s law was signed by Gov. Mike Pence, the vice president-elect of the United States.

[Zarathud]

Soon to be followed by similar rules for the disposition of your cancerous tissue and failing organs.

[Chrisoc13]

Soon to be followed by similar rules for the disposition of your cancerous tissue and failing organs.

surely you can at the very least understand how other people see a distinction there right? I mean I get that this type of vitriol is part of the schtick but you must be able to understand at the very least that other people have a different view on it right? Because if you want real discussion (which I presume you don't based on this comment) you won't get any speaking like that. If you want more "hear hear" then you're onto something.

I don't necessarily agree with the law. If abortion is legal it is legal. If the intent is to make abortions less common then it seems silly to try and work around the law of the land to restrict them by restricting how they dispose of the fetus. But if it is out of respect for the life taken (which is what the pro life side sees) then it is understandable to want that law, although it seems a bit over the top and I have a sneaking suspicion for some this isn't their motive.

[RunningMn9]

surely you can at the very least understand how other people see a distinction there right?

I mean, obviously there is a pretty large distinction. And I would think that just about everyone can see that.

An aborted zygote/embryo/fetus is clearly a different thing than a cluster of cancer cells.

While I don't agree with the law at all, on any level - there's one thing I don't get. Why are aborted embryos treated differently than miscarried embryos?

[Smoove_B]

Satanic Temple will issue challenge:

“Texas health officials are baldly imposing the view that the fetal tissue is elevated to personhood—a religious opinion that conflicts with our own. If Texas is going to treat the disposal of fetal tissue differently from the disposal of any other biological material, in contradiction to our own religious beliefs, they need to present a compelling state interest for doing so. Of course, there is no such state interest, and it’s perfectly clear the demand for fetal tissue burial is a punitive measure imposed by sadistic theocrats. It’s clear these officials deem harassment an acceptable form of pushing their misguided religious agendas.”

[Chrisoc13]

surely you can at the very least understand how other people see a distinction there right?

I mean, obviously there is a pretty large distinction. And I would think that just about everyone can see that.

An aborted zygote/embryo/fetus is clearly a different thing than a cluster of cancer cells.

While I don't agree with the law at all, on any level - there's one thing I don't get. Why are aborted embryos treated differently than miscarried embryos?

I hope people can see the distinction but zarathuds post implies otherwise.

[malchior]

I hope people can see the distinction but zarathuds post implies otherwise.

Well some people will get the distinction then. But seriously - these attempts to impose these practice are likely to be seen as part of an established agenda. And those efforts could be described as having both ethical and moral dimensions. An ethical approach which is hard to imagine could possibly be constitutional but the moral one likely isn't. Especially in light of clear contradictions like RM9 raised.

[Zarathud]

Soon to be followed by similar rules for the disposition of your cancerous tissue and failing organs.

surely you can at the very least understand how other people see a distinction there right?

I can respect that other people may feel a desire to bury a miscarriage or abortion. But this law goes so far beyond that:

1. The rules have nothing to do with medical necessity (my post exactly).

2. The rules are based on a particular religious belief of those not likely to have an abortion. Those who don't want an abortion are not forced to have one.

3. Religious customs differ -- see the Satanists position. If you wanted a burial, that can be arranged. Many Catholic Hospitals will arrange for one FOR FREE in a twice a year ceremony. Forcing burial on someone who doesn't want one is religious intolerance.

4. My wife and I made this decision for medical reasons. It was hard, even though the fetus had 0% chance of survival. It's not in the above post, but yes, this could get personal. Anyone callous enough to inflict additional suffering on a woman in this situation is an insensitive asshole. If I had responded with vitriol, I would have felt fully justified.

I don't want a pat on the back. I want to call this bullshit out.

[RunningMn9]

I agree with your desire to call this law what it is. But making a post that in some ways equivocates fetal tissue with dead gallbladder meat doesn't really do that.

From your last post it sounds like that's not what you were intending (you were intending to point out that dead gallbladder meat is also medically unnecessary, rather than it being morally equivalent).

[Zarathud]

Some (the Satanists or atheists or agnostics) may feel it is morally the same. Medically, it is the same.

Constitutionally, the only compelling interest is to force a particular religious or moral view on others. We are Catholics but didn't request a service, and Pope Francis recently empowered priests to forgive that. Why should the nonsectarian state be more strict?

[Chrisoc13]

Some (the Satanists or atheists or agnostics) may feel it is morally the same. Medically, it is the same.

Constitutionally, the only compelling interest is to force a particular religious or moral view on others. We are Catholics but didn't request a service, and Pope Francis recently empowered priests to forgive that. Why should the nonsectarian state be more strict?

Wait what? it is not medically the same. Seriously. That's absurd. Where are you getting that idea? It doesn't even make sense as an idea that medically it is the same.

I think the law is stupid but your original statement and this backing it up is really not making sense.

[RunningMn9]

I would hazard a guess and say that aborted fetal material and excised failed organ tissue are medically the same. They are both biological waste. Treating them different isn't a matter of medicine.

At least not that I'm aware of.

[Chrisoc13]

I would hazard a guess and say that aborted fetal material and excised failed organ tissue are medically the same. They are both biological waste. Treating them different isn't a matter of medicine.

At least not that I'm aware of.

As someone with some knowledge on the matter not just shooting from the hip- no. No they are not medically the same. That whole idea doesn't even make sense. No tissues are treated exactly the same, it's always case dependent. It's a weird argument that is being shot from the hip. Failed organ tissue? What does that even mean? Seriously. We have people who work with computer science and law telling someone in the medical field how tissue is treated following a case. It's the internet- everyone has Google so they think they have knowledge.

[Smoove_B]

Ok Dr. Zaius, instead tell me why a fibroid tumor extracted from a uterine wall doesn't need to follow the Texas protocol but an aborted fetus does.

[Chrisoc13]

Ok Dr. Zaius, instead tell me why a fibroid tumor extracted from a uterine wall doesn't need to follow the Texas protocol but an aborted fetus does.

I'm not defending the law am I? I'm pointing out the argument is by zarathud is pointless, is counter productive to actual discussion, and is not based on fact. It's shooting from the hip, nothing more.

But a fibroid would likely not be treated the same way. I mean seriously wtf... What is this argument even? What is the point of it? There is a medical distinction between all different tissues, and in each case they are treated differently. I mean from someone who actually cuts tissue out for a living this is such an absurd argument. It honestly doesn't even make sense. But continue.

[Smoove_B]

I have no idea, are you? I was just asking (based on your self-identified medical opinion) what the differences would be. Not in the particulars associated with the removal or the ICD-10 codes used when reporting it to the insurance company, but the actual real-world differences when you're looking at the tissue excised from the human body. While my own experiences with regulating medical waste is rather limited, I don't recall there being separate containers for waste generated based on what part of the body it was removed from.

[Chrisoc13]

I have no idea, are you? I was just asking (based on your self-identified medical opinion) what the differences would be. Not in the particulars associated with the removal or the ICD-10 codes used when reporting it to the insurance company, but the actual real-world differences when you're looking at the tissue excised from the human body. While my own experiences with regulating medical waste is rather limited, I don't recall there being separate containers for waste generated based on what part of the body it was removed from.

Yes they would be treated differently depending on the case. Very rarely are tissues just thrown out at a case. You're removing it for a reason. It isn't just thrown in generic "medical waste". That's pretty uncommon after a case.

[Smoove_B]

Yes they would be treated differently depending on the case. Very rarely are tissues just thrown out at a case. You're removing it for a reason. It isn't just thrown in generic "medical waste". That's pretty uncommon after a case.

Ok, I think we're getting to the root of the issue here there and it's likely because you're on one end of the situation and 99% of the people here are on the other. Note: Neither end is right or wrong, it's just a function of the lens we're using to look at the issue. For you this discussion is bothersome because you know (from experience) the the specifics vary and from a medical perspective there's differences between removing a fibroid and removing fetal tissue - both in procedure and in what is done immediately following the removal. It's the same for me when people incorrectly toss around vectors with respect to disease transmission or use foodborne infection when they really mean foodborne intoxication (or vice versa).

For the person having either procedure done, I don't think anyone would expect the surgeon to ask them what should be done with the fibroid or if there are any special arrangements that need to be made following the removal of a tumor in their lung. I'm not speaking of the marginal cases where people actually want these things (for whatever reason) but what the overwhelming majority of people would expect following the extraction of something from their body.

At that point (for me and apparently Zarathud) the issue breaks down into what appears to clearly be a punitive step for individuals undergoing an abortion vs those having a tonsillectomy or polyps removed from their colon.

So above and beyond what exactly you and your team of doctors are doing behind the scenes after the removal of [Tissue X], the fact that there is now a law requiring that a special subset of human tissue needs to have additional processing involving the patient seems...odd.

[RunningMn9]

From a *medical* perspective what is the reason for treating aborted fetal tissue different from my removed gallbladder tissue?

[Blackhawk]

Honestly, Chrisoc13, I think people are trying to understand your point, but you aren't actually explaining it. You're stating that it is so, but not really explaining it. Can you give us some examples of how different types of excised tissues are treated differently?

[Zarathud]

Even if the medical professional might handle the tissue differently based on its procedure for disposal and reason for removal (biopsy for follow up testing, harvesting for research, etc.), it's the same thing to the patient or non-expert. I know of no medical reason why any tissue would have to be preserved for burial. Burned or autoclaved, maybe.

My single sentence jab wasn't meant to be an exposition of the details, just the absurdity of the law.

[RunningMn9]

Honestly, Chrisoc13, I think people are trying to understand your point, but you aren't actually explaining it. You're stating that it is so, but not really explaining it. Can you give us some examples of how different types of excised tissues are treated differently?

Certainly there are some types which would get shipped off for biopsies and what not. Presumably you might want to study cancerous tissue for instance.

But if I have gall stones and need my gallbladder lopped out, from a medical perspective why should that be treated different that aborted fetal tissue?

I know he's not defending the law, but from a *medical* perspective why should aborted fetal tissue be buried while removed gallbladder tissued can be disposed of without a burial?

[Default]

I thought most abortions were medicinally induced, not surgical procedures and were under twenty weeks. Late term abortions overwhelmingly I thought, were when the fetus died in utero.

Under twenty weeks, there isn't anything to bury.

I understand that the law is intended to financially punish the woman having an abortion. Any stupe can figure that one out.

[RunningMn9]

What are you saying? Of course there is material to dispose of prior to 20 weeks. What do you mean?

[Grifman]

Constitutionally, the only compelling interest is to force a particular religious or moral view on others.

I'm not defending the law by any means, but one doesn't have to be religious to believe that abortion is wrong. For example, Nat Hentoff is an otherwise liberal atheist who is pro-life. As for forcing a "moral" view on any one, govt does that all the time, since many laws are based upon a sense of morality.

[Zarathud]

Yes, that's my line -- religious "or moral" view.

Forcing a particular form of burial services is pretty damn deplorable, even if you did agree. Even the practices of Catholic hospitals (a twice-yearly ceremony) doesn't appear to comply with the Texas law.