Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
+6
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
This hardly seems appropriate.
I think this is an opportunity for a teachable moment about the difference between patient talk and colleague talk. Being less snappy is less rewarding but more fruitful.
This is entirely within the norms of how physicians talk to each other, and this choice of words is appropriate for this context. Physicians do adjust sensitivity of word choice depending on the situation. Recommending talking to a therapist is an overreaction in this specific case, but I feel like it is ok to be vigilant in general for burnout.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
An unwanted fetus is unquestionably a parasite. And a dangerous one at that, which a woman should feel precisely zero guilt about removing. The social construct that medical practitioners like psyck0 should not feel good about the many women that they free from unwanted pain, suffering and the chance of death is a construct of a system designed to punish women for having sex. Abortions make women healthy. They are reliable, cheap and effective. You just shouldn't have one if you want to have a baby.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Indeed, which is why cancer doctors feel so bad about the cancers they remove. Cancer is a natural state, and that tumour could have lived for years, if not decades before eventually killing it's host. Who are we to date interfere in that precious and natural process of growth and partnership between the cancer and it's human.
A fetus is not a parasite if it is desirable to the woman. It becomes a person when the woman carrying the child decides it is.
Hell, nature agrees with me. The fact that human women can't just "not have a baby" by thinking super hard about it while pregnant is one of those stupid things that humans have lost the ability to do. It's called the "Bruce effect". Lots of female animals can do it, and often do in response to new males arriving on the scene.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Indeed, which is why cancer doctors feel so bad about the cancers they remove. Cancer is a natural state, and that tumour could have lived for years, if not decades before eventually killing it's host. Who are we to date interfere in that precious and natural process of growth and partnership between the cancer and it's human.
A fetus is not a parasite if it is desirable to the woman. It becomes a person when the woman carrying the child decides it is.
Hell, nature agrees with me. The fact that human women can't just "not have a baby" by thinking super hard about it while pregnant is one of those stupid things that humans have lost the ability to do. It's called the "Bruce effect". Lots of female animals can do it, and often do in response to new males arriving on the scene.
Still, it would be pretty bold to march right into a patient room and start using that language without reading the mood
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Indeed, which is why cancer doctors feel so bad about the cancers they remove. Cancer is a natural state, and that tumour could have lived for years, if not decades before eventually killing it's host. Who are we to date interfere in that precious and natural process of growth and partnership between the cancer and it's human.
A fetus is not a parasite if it is desirable to the woman. It becomes a person when the woman carrying the child decides it is.
Hell, nature agrees with me. The fact that human women can't just "not have a baby" by thinking super hard about it while pregnant is one of those stupid things that humans have lost the ability to do. It's called the "Bruce effect". Lots of female animals can do it, and often do in response to new males arriving on the scene.
Still, it would be pretty bold to march right into a patient room and start using that language without reading the mood
I presume she/he doesn’t use such words to patients.
But I feel that reacting to the hostility of the religious right by going in the opposite direction and not acknowledging that the fetus is a potential human life is disturbing. Many of the patients might have more ambiguous feelings than she/he supposes like “I wish I could have this baby but there’s no way we can afford a third” or “I feel bad that I couldn’t cope with a disabled child but I know my limits.”
+6
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I don't find the idea that increasing hostility from the religious right is possible to be very compelling, personally.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Indeed, which is why cancer doctors feel so bad about the cancers they remove. Cancer is a natural state, and that tumour could have lived for years, if not decades before eventually killing it's host. Who are we to date interfere in that precious and natural process of growth and partnership between the cancer and it's human.
A fetus is not a parasite if it is desirable to the woman. It becomes a person when the woman carrying the child decides it is.
Hell, nature agrees with me. The fact that human women can't just "not have a baby" by thinking super hard about it while pregnant is one of those stupid things that humans have lost the ability to do. It's called the "Bruce effect". Lots of female animals can do it, and often do in response to new males arriving on the scene.
Still, it would be pretty bold to march right into a patient room and start using that language without reading the mood
I presume she/he doesn’t use such words to patients.
But I feel that reacting to the hostility of the religious right by going in the opposite direction and not acknowledging that the fetus is a potential human life is disturbing. Many of the patients might have more ambiguous feelings than she/he supposes like “I wish I could have this baby but there’s no way we can afford a third” or “I feel bad that I couldn’t cope with a disabled child but I know my limits.”
Potential human lives are just that - potential. There's plenty of actual human lives, including the one carrying that potential, which deserve infinitely more consideration.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Indeed, which is why cancer doctors feel so bad about the cancers they remove. Cancer is a natural state, and that tumour could have lived for years, if not decades before eventually killing it's host. Who are we to date interfere in that precious and natural process of growth and partnership between the cancer and it's human.
A fetus is not a parasite if it is desirable to the woman. It becomes a person when the woman carrying the child decides it is.
Hell, nature agrees with me. The fact that human women can't just "not have a baby" by thinking super hard about it while pregnant is one of those stupid things that humans have lost the ability to do. It's called the "Bruce effect". Lots of female animals can do it, and often do in response to new males arriving on the scene.
Still, it would be pretty bold to march right into a patient room and start using that language without reading the mood
I presume she/he doesn’t use such words to patients.
But I feel that reacting to the hostility of the religious right by going in the opposite direction and not acknowledging that the fetus is a potential human life is disturbing. Many of the patients might have more ambiguous feelings than she/he supposes like “I wish I could have this baby but there’s no way we can afford a third” or “I feel bad that I couldn’t cope with a disabled child but I know my limits.”
Potential human life is a meaningless metric. There are many things that are potentially human life that we dispose of in the shower drain.
I feel that this type of talk is not really understanding about how the average woman who is not really invested in reproductive politics but really needs an abortion feels about things.
+4
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
A suggested, brief style guide for this discussion:
-Because not only women but also trans men and other people with uteruses need abortions, consider using eg "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women".
-Because the majority anti-choice ideology is rooted in misogyny, "women" may still be the correct term to use when discussing eg what roles a given church feels certain people ought to play in society.
Intersectionality is complex and using accurate language sometimes makes phrasing more awkward, but it's important to make an effort here.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Contextually, this is an organism that is harmful to the mother growing inside her. What may appear to be angry language is simply medically accurate: it’s harming her body and she wants to have it removed. It’s harsh because it’s a socially loaded term, but in a very real sense removing a malignant pregnancy is comparable to removing a tape worm.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Contextually, this is an organism that is harmful to the mother growing inside her. What may appear to be angry language is simply medically accurate: it’s harming her body and she wants to have it removed. It’s harsh because it’s a socially loaded term, but in a very real sense removing a malignant pregnancy is comparable to removing a tape worm.
If I was having an abortion and the nurse used that sort of language I would be extremely upset. If I had just *had* an abortion I would probably be upset just to hear it right now.
I know medical professionals talk much more bluntly among themselves but I don’t think it should leak out into the general discourse.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2019
Speaking to your patient and posting on a debate forum are two different things. I don't think any of us are qualified to speak for how patients feel, unless we've had abortions or worked with patients.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Contextually, this is an organism that is harmful to the mother growing inside her. What may appear to be angry language is simply medically accurate: it’s harming her body and she wants to have it removed. It’s harsh because it’s a socially loaded term, but in a very real sense removing a malignant pregnancy is comparable to removing a tape worm.
If I was having an abortion and the nurse used that sort of language I would be extremely upset. If I had just *had* an abortion I would probably be upset just to hear it right now.
I know medical professionals talk much more bluntly among themselves but I don’t think it should leak out into the general discourse.
Really? While I agree this kind of talk shouldn’t be used with patients, I’m fascinated to hear it myself. I would gladly know the perspectives of everyone involved.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Indeed, which is why cancer doctors feel so bad about the cancers they remove. Cancer is a natural state, and that tumour could have lived for years, if not decades before eventually killing it's host. Who are we to date interfere in that precious and natural process of growth and partnership between the cancer and it's human.
A fetus is not a parasite if it is desirable to the woman. It becomes a person when the woman carrying the child decides it is.
Hell, nature agrees with me. The fact that human women can't just "not have a baby" by thinking super hard about it while pregnant is one of those stupid things that humans have lost the ability to do. It's called the "Bruce effect". Lots of female animals can do it, and often do in response to new males arriving on the scene.
Still, it would be pretty bold to march right into a patient room and start using that language without reading the mood
I presume she/he doesn’t use such words to patients.
But I feel that reacting to the hostility of the religious right by going in the opposite direction and not acknowledging that the fetus is a potential human life is disturbing. Many of the patients might have more ambiguous feelings than she/he supposes like “I wish I could have this baby but there’s no way we can afford a third” or “I feel bad that I couldn’t cope with a disabled child but I know my limits.”
Potential human life is a meaningless metric. There are many things that are potentially human life that we dispose of in the shower drain.
A gamete by itself will never develop into a person.
Similarly, while I agree that a fetus is technically a parasite, it's different from a cancer or a tape worm in that it could hypothetically become a person.
Just because a fetus could become a person isn't enough to condemn abortion, but I find it interesting that some people value the "could become a person" distinction and others find it completely meaningless and think of a fetus in the same they do a cancer.
I'd be surprised if more than a small minority of pro-choice people felt this way, honestly.
The fetus is obviously enough like an invasive problem and very dangerous for a bunch of reasons that why the immune system doesn't attack the fetus was a bigger scientific question than why it sometimes did attack the fetus. The immune system has to be suppressed and leaves the person more vulnerable to infection.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Indeed, which is why cancer doctors feel so bad about the cancers they remove. Cancer is a natural state, and that tumour could have lived for years, if not decades before eventually killing it's host. Who are we to date interfere in that precious and natural process of growth and partnership between the cancer and it's human.
A fetus is not a parasite if it is desirable to the woman. It becomes a person when the woman carrying the child decides it is.
Hell, nature agrees with me. The fact that human women can't just "not have a baby" by thinking super hard about it while pregnant is one of those stupid things that humans have lost the ability to do. It's called the "Bruce effect". Lots of female animals can do it, and often do in response to new males arriving on the scene.
Still, it would be pretty bold to march right into a patient room and start using that language without reading the mood
I presume she/he doesn’t use such words to patients.
But I feel that reacting to the hostility of the religious right by going in the opposite direction and not acknowledging that the fetus is a potential human life is disturbing. Many of the patients might have more ambiguous feelings than she/he supposes like “I wish I could have this baby but there’s no way we can afford a third” or “I feel bad that I couldn’t cope with a disabled child but I know my limits.”
Potential human life is a meaningless metric. There are many things that are potentially human life that we dispose of in the shower drain.
A gamete by itself will never develop into a person.
Similarly, while I agree that a fetus is technically a parasite, it's different from a cancer or a tape worm in that it could hypothetically become a person.
Just because a fetus could become a person isn't enough to condemn abortion, but I find it interesting that some people value the "could become a person" distinction and others find it completely meaningless and think of a fetus in the same they do a cancer.
I'd be surprised if more than a small minority of pro-choice people felt this way, honestly.
By your metric a fetus by itself will never develop into a person.
Speaking to your patient and posting on a debate forum are two different things. I don't think any of us are qualified to speak for how patients feel, unless we've had abortions or worked with patients.
Since I had bad complications with my pregnancy, I would definitely have an abortion if I got pregnant. But I wouldn't feel happy about it because in truth I would like another child. I wouldn't welcome anything along the lines of "Congratulations on getting rid of your parasite!" because I'd be really sad.
I suspect women vary highly on how they feel about abortion, from "no worse than getting a teeth cleaning" to feeling extremely upset for a long time (in the case of aborting a highly wanted baby with severe health defects, which I'm guessing would feel as bad as miscarrying, which definitely is an upsetting experience.)
To the poster that was asking about legalized abortion in other countries, I come to give a shallow view of the situation in Argentina.
Abortion is permited only if ordered by a judge under specific circumstances, if the pregnancy is caused by rape or if the life of the mother is in danger. In 2012 it was revised to include cases where the pregnancy could lead to serious psychological trauma, and a judge is no longer needed, but the pregnant person has to give a sword declaration to prove that their case merits an abortion and its legal.(*)
There is a big movement fighting for free, legal abortion, mostly led by left wing parties and feminist communities, but they have not been succesful yet. There is a very big pushback by the conservative population, mainly organized by the christian church and the far FAR right, wich still has a lot of influence in politics and media.
Both movements have interesting names and identifiers, the pro choicers use the phrase "Legal, Safe and free", "Sexual education to decide, contraceptives to prevent abortion and abortion to prevent death" and use a green neckerchief to identify themselves, not only at protests but keep one attached to themselves at all times.
The anti-abortion side, marches using the phrase "in defense of both lives", during protests they usually turn to religious chants and phrases like "Family, homeland and in defense of life." (homeland in spanish is Patria, and its an extremely loaded word). They identify themselves with a light blue neckerchief, but its rare to see them outside of protests.
Needless to say, its an extremely divisive subject and it has been the source of many violent threats and encounters, usually by the anti-abortion side, but that could be my personal bias.
Aparently the color coding of the protests is something that exists in other south american countries as well and Mexico, but I cant speak for the rest of the continent. There is also a THIRD neckerchief, an orange one, used by people who want a separation of church and state, sparked by the religious groups lobbying against a free abortion legislation.
(*)Some of the recent changes had to be done because of the extreme push from religious groups to make all kinds of abortion ilegal, for example, they lobbied for the need to be authorized by a judge, because argentinian justice is so slow that most cases would be "resolved" before a judge can get to the case.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Contextually, this is an organism that is harmful to the mother growing inside her. What may appear to be angry language is simply medically accurate: it’s harming her body and she wants to have it removed. It’s harsh because it’s a socially loaded term, but in a very real sense removing a malignant pregnancy is comparable to removing a tape worm.
If I was having an abortion and the nurse used that sort of language I would be extremely upset. If I had just *had* an abortion I would probably be upset just to hear it right now.
I know medical professionals talk much more bluntly among themselves but I don’t think it should leak out into the general discourse.
The way you feel about an abortion is also the product of a society designed to punish women for having sex and make them dependant on men, and to prevent poor families from having effective family planning to stop them growing richer. You think you would feel bad overwhelmingly because you have been told you should feel bad. If you, for example, had to have an abortion because your fetus was implanted outside the womb and was going to kill you, but were sad about losing the baby it is the absence of the baby you should be sad about. Not the lifesaving abortion. Abortions remove fetuses from people's bodies who have decided they want them gone. The reasons for that may be complex, and cause sadness, but the fetus is not a baby. It itself is nothing to be sad about.
"I think I would be sad simply because I had an abortion" is itself a position which has been forced on you by pro lifers. The abortion isn't the problem for any woman. Her circumstances may have forced her to that clinic, but, unless she is being forced into it that abortion is going to be good for her. Unless she keeps on thinking about how bad she should feel about disposing of a clump of cells. Which her body does automatically every month anyway, and she only does because people tell her she should feel bad.
Speaking to your patient and posting on a debate forum are two different things. I don't think any of us are qualified to speak for how patients feel, unless we've had abortions or worked with patients.
Since I had bad complications with my pregnancy, I would definitely have an abortion if I got pregnant. But I wouldn't feel happy about it because in truth I would like another child. I wouldn't welcome anything along the lines of "Congratulations on getting rid of your parasite!" because I'd be really sad.
I suspect women vary highly on how they feel about abortion, from "no worse than getting a teeth cleaning" to feeling extremely upset for a long time (in the case of aborting a highly wanted baby with severe health defects, which I'm guessing would feel as bad as miscarrying, which definitely is an upsetting experience.)
But the emotions you feel about losing the baby are nothing to do with the abortion. The abortion freed you from pain, suffering and the risk of death. The condition of the fetus, or complications with previous pregnancies are what caused you to be unable to have the baby.
the existence and availability of abortion should be celebrated in the same way the existence of any safe, effective medical procedure that improves the lives of billions should be celebrated. it should not be treated as something scary and shameful.
Yeah, I think if you are really a medical professional psyck0, you should may think of talking to a therapist, such loaded language might mean you are burning out a bit.
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
Contextually, this is an organism that is harmful to the mother growing inside her. What may appear to be angry language is simply medically accurate: it’s harming her body and she wants to have it removed. It’s harsh because it’s a socially loaded term, but in a very real sense removing a malignant pregnancy is comparable to removing a tape worm.
If I was having an abortion and the nurse used that sort of language I would be extremely upset. If I had just *had* an abortion I would probably be upset just to hear it right now.
I know medical professionals talk much more bluntly among themselves but I don’t think it should leak out into the general discourse.
The way you feel about an abortion is also the product of a society designed to punish women for having sex and make them dependant on men, and to prevent poor families from having effective family planning to stop them growing richer. You think you would feel bad overwhelmingly because you have been told you should feel bad. If you, for example, had to have an abortion because your fetus was implanted outside the womb and was going to kill you, but were sad about losing the baby it is the absence of the baby you should be sad about. Not the lifesaving abortion. Abortions remove fetuses from people's bodies who have decided they want them gone. The reasons for that may be complex, and cause sadness, but the fetus is not a baby. It itself is nothing to be sad about.
"I think I would be sad simply because I had an abortion" is itself a position which has been forced on you by pro lifers. The abortion isn't the problem for any woman. Her circumstances may have forced her to that clinic, but, unless she is being forced into it that abortion is going to be good for her. Unless she keeps on thinking about how bad she should feel about disposing of a clump of cells. Which her body does automatically every month anyway, and she only does because people tell her she should feel bad.
That's a heavily loaded claim. Is also telling women how they should feel.
@TryCatcher whats the legislation and availability like in Venezuela?
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
@TryCatcher whats the legislation and availability like in Venezuela?
Is illegal except in cases where the woman's life is in danger, with jail time from 6 months to two years for the woman and one to three years to the doctor, more if the woman dies.
Which means that there's a clandestine black market, that is very risky for the women. Between that and the scarcity of contraceptives, women that manage to afford it go through sterilization.
Wikipedia has an entry here. Venezuela is a very conservative country:
The population of Venezuela is over three-quarters Roman Catholic,making Catholic norms more prevalent in Venezuelan society than any other religion. Abortion laws are debated by those with Catholic beliefs, as some Catholics hold that ‘artificial’ forms of birth control (abortion, condoms, or birth control pills) do not align with the Catholic moral code, and “that abortion is a result of widespread immorality and ignorance.” Protests against abortion-restrictive laws have raised concern for the Catholic community; in May 2006, Pope Benedict XVI met with President Hugo Chavez to discuss his concern over the possibility that Chavez would loosen abortion laws in Venezuela.
Is similar to the LGBT community, that thought that the "revolution" would help them...but the "revolution" is handled by a bunch fo Army thugs (and Russians) so they were wrong.
(Also, the food, medicine, criminal and political crisis overshadows everything else).
TryCatcher on
+2
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
To the poster that was asking about legalized abortion in other countries, I come to give a shallow view of the situation in Argentina.
Abortion is permited only if ordered by a judge under specific circumstances, if the pregnancy is caused by rape or if the life of the mother is in danger. In 2012 it was revised to include cases where the pregnancy could lead to serious psychological trauma, and a judge is no longer needed, but the pregnant person has to give a sword declaration to prove that their case merits an abortion and its legal.(*)
There is a big movement fighting for free, legal abortion, mostly led by left wing parties and feminist communities, but they have not been succesful yet. There is a very big pushback by the conservative population, mainly organized by the christian church and the far FAR right, wich still has a lot of influence in politics and media.
Both movements have interesting names and identifiers, the pro choicers use the phrase "Legal, Safe and free", "Sexual education to decide, contraceptives to prevent abortion and abortion to prevent death" and use a green neckerchief to identify themselves, not only at protests but keep one attached to themselves at all times.
The anti-abortion side, marches using the phrase "in defense of both lives", during protests they usually turn to religious chants and phrases like "Family, homeland and in defense of life." (homeland in spanish is Patria, and its an extremely loaded word). They identify themselves with a light blue neckerchief, but its rare to see them outside of protests.
Needless to say, its an extremely divisive subject and it has been the source of many violent threats and encounters, usually by the anti-abortion side, but that could be my personal bias.
Aparently the color coding of the protests is something that exists in other south american countries as well and Mexico, but I cant speak for the rest of the continent. There is also a THIRD neckerchief, an orange one, used by people who want a separation of church and state, sparked by the religious groups lobbying against a free abortion legislation.
(*)Some of the recent changes had to be done because of the extreme push from religious groups to make all kinds of abortion ilegal, for example, they lobbied for the need to be authorized by a judge, because argentinian justice is so slow that most cases would be "resolved" before a judge can get to the case.
Can I wear a green and an orange neckerchief?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I perform abortions, early and late. All this moral hand wringing is mainly from men or from women who have never been close to needing an abortion. Very few of the women I treat are upset in the slightest, except that they got pregnant in the first place. It is a medical removal of a parasite.
I have some nits to pick with this statement, because I think it is pretty out of hand dismissive.
Firstly , I'm not sure what exactly qualifies a women as "close to needing an abortion", or how you would know that "never" about them.
Second, this is probably about the most obvious type of selection bias imaginable.
Third, it highly discounts the ability of people to justify/rationalize taking actions personally they would otherwise oppose. Not just the "All abortions are murder, except that one I had when I was 18 because I was just about to go to college" type, but also the "I know this is wrong, but I'm trapped and I don't know what to do" type.
Of course it's a selection bias. The women who would be upset by abortion choose not to have one. That leaves only the women who are not upset. As I said, almost none of my patients express any reservation or regret or appear upset during the process. There are of course occasional exceptions.
You also shouldn't be surprised by my attitude. People with hang ups about this don't perform abortions. Nevertheless almost every gynecologist will and does do them occasionally which tells you something about the medical reality. The care (really lack of care) of actually existing human people is far more troubling to me than abortion. Before I can get upset about depriving an unwanted child of life, we need to do something about the fact that said child is probably going to be among the 25% in North America who don't even get enough food to eat. You might convince me to care if I believed the child would actually have a life worth living.
Before legal abortion, hospitals used to have entire wards of women who had undergone illegal abortion, had infection and lost their uterus. Many died. I have seen only one seen a septic abortion in my career to date and it was a miscarriage. I have never had anyone else come so close to dying, from any other disease, in my field. I am thankful that it is no longer just a fact of life.
I perform abortions, early and late. All this moral hand wringing is mainly from men or from women who have never been close to needing an abortion. Very few of the women I treat are upset in the slightest, except that they got pregnant in the first place. It is a medical removal of a parasite.
I have some nits to pick with this statement, because I think it is pretty out of hand dismissive.
Firstly , I'm not sure what exactly qualifies a women as "close to needing an abortion", or how you would know that "never" about them.
Second, this is probably about the most obvious type of selection bias imaginable.
Third, it highly discounts the ability of people to justify/rationalize taking actions personally they would otherwise oppose. Not just the "All abortions are murder, except that one I had when I was 18 because I was just about to go to college" type, but also the "I know this is wrong, but I'm trapped and I don't know what to do" type.
Of course it's a selection bias. The women who would be upset by abortion choose not to have one. That leaves only the women who are not upset. As I said, almost none of my patients express any reservation or regret or appear upset during the process. There are of course occasional exceptions.
You also shouldn't be surprised by my attitude. People with hang ups about this don't perform abortions. Nevertheless almost every gynecologist will and does do them occasionally which tells you something about the medical reality. The care (really lack of care) of actually existing human people is far more troubling to me than abortion. Before I can get upset about depriving an unwanted child of life, we need to do something about the fact that said child is probably going to be among the 25% in North America who don't even get enough food to eat. You might convince me to care if I believed the child would actually have a life worth living.
Before legal abortion, hospitals used to have entire wards of women who had undergone illegal abortion, had infection and lost their uterus. Many died. I have seen only one seen a septic abortion in my career to date and it was a miscarriage. I have never had anyone else come so close to dying, from any other disease, in my field. I am thankful that it is no longer just a fact of life.
Bolded is the bigger selection bias.
I would say that whilst doctors who perform abortions might reasonably hold this attitude, the general public may not want, say, doctors performing emergency ceasars to hold the same 'parasite' view, even if still medically accurate and being the primary reason why the care is done.
I think poor children also have a life worth living. We should give them food, obviously. A poor woman who does want the kid shouldn't feel bad that occasionally times are hard.
The city I live in gives free school meals to all kids, even in summer, so that hopefully kids don't have to go hungry. It'd be even better if we just gave money to mothers for food, IMHO.
+6
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I perform abortions, early and late. All this moral hand wringing is mainly from men or from women who have never been close to needing an abortion. Very few of the women I treat are upset in the slightest, except that they got pregnant in the first place. It is a medical removal of a parasite.
I have some nits to pick with this statement, because I think it is pretty out of hand dismissive.
Firstly , I'm not sure what exactly qualifies a women as "close to needing an abortion", or how you would know that "never" about them.
Second, this is probably about the most obvious type of selection bias imaginable.
Third, it highly discounts the ability of people to justify/rationalize taking actions personally they would otherwise oppose. Not just the "All abortions are murder, except that one I had when I was 18 because I was just about to go to college" type, but also the "I know this is wrong, but I'm trapped and I don't know what to do" type.
Of course it's a selection bias. The women who would be upset by abortion choose not to have one. That leaves only the women who are not upset. As I said, almost none of my patients express any reservation or regret or appear upset during the process. There are of course occasional exceptions.
You also shouldn't be surprised by my attitude. People with hang ups about this don't perform abortions. Nevertheless almost every gynecologist will and does do them occasionally which tells you something about the medical reality. The care (really lack of care) of actually existing human people is far more troubling to me than abortion. Before I can get upset about depriving an unwanted child of life, we need to do something about the fact that said child is probably going to be among the 25% in North America who don't even get enough food to eat. You might convince me to care if I believed the child would actually have a life worth living.
Before legal abortion, hospitals used to have entire wards of women who had undergone illegal abortion, had infection and lost their uterus. Many died. I have seen only one seen a septic abortion in my career to date and it was a miscarriage. I have never had anyone else come so close to dying, from any other disease, in my field. I am thankful that it is no longer just a fact of life.
Bolded is the bigger selection bias.
I would say that whilst doctors who perform abortions might reasonably hold this attitude, the general public may not want, say, doctors performing emergency ceasars to hold the same 'parasite' view, even if still medically accurate and being the primary reason why the care is done.
Assuming that's true, why would it matter at all? Should it?
I think poor children also have a life worth living. We should give them food, obviously. A poor woman who does want the kid shouldn't feel bad that occasionally times are hard.
The city I live in gives free school meals to all kids, even in summer, so that hopefully kids don't have to go hungry. It'd be even better if we just gave money to mothers for food, IMHO.
And "better dead than poor" is exactly the kind of creepy pro-eugenics argument that I was talking about.
That's the mother's decision to make, not mine. Also not anyone else's. I'm just saying I care far more about the child who's actually in front of me and already suffering.
I perform abortions, early and late. All this moral hand wringing is mainly from men or from women who have never been close to needing an abortion. Very few of the women I treat are upset in the slightest, except that they got pregnant in the first place. It is a medical removal of a parasite.
I have some nits to pick with this statement, because I think it is pretty out of hand dismissive.
Firstly , I'm not sure what exactly qualifies a women as "close to needing an abortion", or how you would know that "never" about them.
Second, this is probably about the most obvious type of selection bias imaginable.
Third, it highly discounts the ability of people to justify/rationalize taking actions personally they would otherwise oppose. Not just the "All abortions are murder, except that one I had when I was 18 because I was just about to go to college" type, but also the "I know this is wrong, but I'm trapped and I don't know what to do" type.
Of course it's a selection bias. The women who would be upset by abortion choose not to have one. That leaves only the women who are not upset. As I said, almost none of my patients express any reservation or regret or appear upset during the process. There are of course occasional exceptions.
You also shouldn't be surprised by my attitude. People with hang ups about this don't perform abortions. Nevertheless almost every gynecologist will and does do them occasionally which tells you something about the medical reality. The care (really lack of care) of actually existing human people is far more troubling to me than abortion. Before I can get upset about depriving an unwanted child of life, we need to do something about the fact that said child is probably going to be among the 25% in North America who don't even get enough food to eat. You might convince me to care if I believed the child would actually have a life worth living.
Before legal abortion, hospitals used to have entire wards of women who had undergone illegal abortion, had infection and lost their uterus. Many died. I have seen only one seen a septic abortion in my career to date and it was a miscarriage. I have never had anyone else come so close to dying, from any other disease, in my field. I am thankful that it is no longer just a fact of life.
Bolded is the bigger selection bias.
I would say that whilst doctors who perform abortions might reasonably hold this attitude, the general public may not want, say, doctors performing emergency ceasars to hold the same 'parasite' view, even if still medically accurate and being the primary reason why the care is done.
The first duty of a doctor is to their patients. If you accuse a doctor of being unable or unwilling to perform a necessary service within their scope of practice for their patients, then that is quite a serious accusation, and I want you to be completely aware of its severity. Did you mean to make such an accusation?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I know several left-leaning, staunchly pro-choice women who would be pretty offended if you called their pregnancy a "parasite", starting with my wife. I agree that it's loaded language and it's not necessary, whether it's technically accurate or not.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Posts
I'd be careful not to be judgmental of their own state of mind, personally.
This hardly seems appropriate.
can't have anyone getting too excited about abortions
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
I think this is an opportunity for a teachable moment about the difference between patient talk and colleague talk. Being less snappy is less rewarding but more fruitful.
This is entirely within the norms of how physicians talk to each other, and this choice of words is appropriate for this context. Physicians do adjust sensitivity of word choice depending on the situation. Recommending talking to a therapist is an overreaction in this specific case, but I feel like it is ok to be vigilant in general for burnout.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Pregnancy is a natural state, not invasion by a “parasite.” Someone who uses such angry language may be struggling with the general societal hostility to their profession.
An unwanted fetus is unquestionably a parasite. And a dangerous one at that, which a woman should feel precisely zero guilt about removing. The social construct that medical practitioners like psyck0 should not feel good about the many women that they free from unwanted pain, suffering and the chance of death is a construct of a system designed to punish women for having sex. Abortions make women healthy. They are reliable, cheap and effective. You just shouldn't have one if you want to have a baby.
Indeed, which is why cancer doctors feel so bad about the cancers they remove. Cancer is a natural state, and that tumour could have lived for years, if not decades before eventually killing it's host. Who are we to date interfere in that precious and natural process of growth and partnership between the cancer and it's human.
A fetus is not a parasite if it is desirable to the woman. It becomes a person when the woman carrying the child decides it is.
Hell, nature agrees with me. The fact that human women can't just "not have a baby" by thinking super hard about it while pregnant is one of those stupid things that humans have lost the ability to do. It's called the "Bruce effect". Lots of female animals can do it, and often do in response to new males arriving on the scene.
Still, it would be pretty bold to march right into a patient room and start using that language without reading the mood
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I presume she/he doesn’t use such words to patients.
But I feel that reacting to the hostility of the religious right by going in the opposite direction and not acknowledging that the fetus is a potential human life is disturbing. Many of the patients might have more ambiguous feelings than she/he supposes like “I wish I could have this baby but there’s no way we can afford a third” or “I feel bad that I couldn’t cope with a disabled child but I know my limits.”
Potential human lives are just that - potential. There's plenty of actual human lives, including the one carrying that potential, which deserve infinitely more consideration.
Potential human life is a meaningless metric. There are many things that are potentially human life that we dispose of in the shower drain.
-Because not only women but also trans men and other people with uteruses need abortions, consider using eg "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women".
-Because the majority anti-choice ideology is rooted in misogyny, "women" may still be the correct term to use when discussing eg what roles a given church feels certain people ought to play in society.
Intersectionality is complex and using accurate language sometimes makes phrasing more awkward, but it's important to make an effort here.
Contextually, this is an organism that is harmful to the mother growing inside her. What may appear to be angry language is simply medically accurate: it’s harming her body and she wants to have it removed. It’s harsh because it’s a socially loaded term, but in a very real sense removing a malignant pregnancy is comparable to removing a tape worm.
If I was having an abortion and the nurse used that sort of language I would be extremely upset. If I had just *had* an abortion I would probably be upset just to hear it right now.
I know medical professionals talk much more bluntly among themselves but I don’t think it should leak out into the general discourse.
Really? While I agree this kind of talk shouldn’t be used with patients, I’m fascinated to hear it myself. I would gladly know the perspectives of everyone involved.
A gamete by itself will never develop into a person.
Similarly, while I agree that a fetus is technically a parasite, it's different from a cancer or a tape worm in that it could hypothetically become a person.
Just because a fetus could become a person isn't enough to condemn abortion, but I find it interesting that some people value the "could become a person" distinction and others find it completely meaningless and think of a fetus in the same they do a cancer.
I'd be surprised if more than a small minority of pro-choice people felt this way, honestly.
By your metric a fetus by itself will never develop into a person.
Since I had bad complications with my pregnancy, I would definitely have an abortion if I got pregnant. But I wouldn't feel happy about it because in truth I would like another child. I wouldn't welcome anything along the lines of "Congratulations on getting rid of your parasite!" because I'd be really sad.
I suspect women vary highly on how they feel about abortion, from "no worse than getting a teeth cleaning" to feeling extremely upset for a long time (in the case of aborting a highly wanted baby with severe health defects, which I'm guessing would feel as bad as miscarrying, which definitely is an upsetting experience.)
Abortion is permited only if ordered by a judge under specific circumstances, if the pregnancy is caused by rape or if the life of the mother is in danger. In 2012 it was revised to include cases where the pregnancy could lead to serious psychological trauma, and a judge is no longer needed, but the pregnant person has to give a sword declaration to prove that their case merits an abortion and its legal.(*)
There is a big movement fighting for free, legal abortion, mostly led by left wing parties and feminist communities, but they have not been succesful yet. There is a very big pushback by the conservative population, mainly organized by the christian church and the far FAR right, wich still has a lot of influence in politics and media.
Both movements have interesting names and identifiers, the pro choicers use the phrase "Legal, Safe and free", "Sexual education to decide, contraceptives to prevent abortion and abortion to prevent death" and use a green neckerchief to identify themselves, not only at protests but keep one attached to themselves at all times.
The anti-abortion side, marches using the phrase "in defense of both lives", during protests they usually turn to religious chants and phrases like "Family, homeland and in defense of life." (homeland in spanish is Patria, and its an extremely loaded word). They identify themselves with a light blue neckerchief, but its rare to see them outside of protests.
Needless to say, its an extremely divisive subject and it has been the source of many violent threats and encounters, usually by the anti-abortion side, but that could be my personal bias.
Aparently the color coding of the protests is something that exists in other south american countries as well and Mexico, but I cant speak for the rest of the continent. There is also a THIRD neckerchief, an orange one, used by people who want a separation of church and state, sparked by the religious groups lobbying against a free abortion legislation.
(*)Some of the recent changes had to be done because of the extreme push from religious groups to make all kinds of abortion ilegal, for example, they lobbied for the need to be authorized by a judge, because argentinian justice is so slow that most cases would be "resolved" before a judge can get to the case.
The way you feel about an abortion is also the product of a society designed to punish women for having sex and make them dependant on men, and to prevent poor families from having effective family planning to stop them growing richer. You think you would feel bad overwhelmingly because you have been told you should feel bad. If you, for example, had to have an abortion because your fetus was implanted outside the womb and was going to kill you, but were sad about losing the baby it is the absence of the baby you should be sad about. Not the lifesaving abortion. Abortions remove fetuses from people's bodies who have decided they want them gone. The reasons for that may be complex, and cause sadness, but the fetus is not a baby. It itself is nothing to be sad about.
"I think I would be sad simply because I had an abortion" is itself a position which has been forced on you by pro lifers. The abortion isn't the problem for any woman. Her circumstances may have forced her to that clinic, but, unless she is being forced into it that abortion is going to be good for her. Unless she keeps on thinking about how bad she should feel about disposing of a clump of cells. Which her body does automatically every month anyway, and she only does because people tell her she should feel bad.
But the emotions you feel about losing the baby are nothing to do with the abortion. The abortion freed you from pain, suffering and the risk of death. The condition of the fetus, or complications with previous pregnancies are what caused you to be unable to have the baby.
That's a heavily loaded claim. Is also telling women how they should feel.
Is illegal except in cases where the woman's life is in danger, with jail time from 6 months to two years for the woman and one to three years to the doctor, more if the woman dies.
Which means that there's a clandestine black market, that is very risky for the women. Between that and the scarcity of contraceptives, women that manage to afford it go through sterilization.
Wikipedia has an entry here. Venezuela is a very conservative country:
Is similar to the LGBT community, that thought that the "revolution" would help them...but the "revolution" is handled by a bunch fo Army thugs (and Russians) so they were wrong.
(Also, the food, medicine, criminal and political crisis overshadows everything else).
Can I wear a green and an orange neckerchief?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Of course it's a selection bias. The women who would be upset by abortion choose not to have one. That leaves only the women who are not upset. As I said, almost none of my patients express any reservation or regret or appear upset during the process. There are of course occasional exceptions.
You also shouldn't be surprised by my attitude. People with hang ups about this don't perform abortions. Nevertheless almost every gynecologist will and does do them occasionally which tells you something about the medical reality. The care (really lack of care) of actually existing human people is far more troubling to me than abortion. Before I can get upset about depriving an unwanted child of life, we need to do something about the fact that said child is probably going to be among the 25% in North America who don't even get enough food to eat. You might convince me to care if I believed the child would actually have a life worth living.
Before legal abortion, hospitals used to have entire wards of women who had undergone illegal abortion, had infection and lost their uterus. Many died. I have seen only one seen a septic abortion in my career to date and it was a miscarriage. I have never had anyone else come so close to dying, from any other disease, in my field. I am thankful that it is no longer just a fact of life.
Bolded is the bigger selection bias.
I would say that whilst doctors who perform abortions might reasonably hold this attitude, the general public may not want, say, doctors performing emergency ceasars to hold the same 'parasite' view, even if still medically accurate and being the primary reason why the care is done.
The city I live in gives free school meals to all kids, even in summer, so that hopefully kids don't have to go hungry. It'd be even better if we just gave money to mothers for food, IMHO.
Assuming that's true, why would it matter at all? Should it?
And "better dead than poor" is exactly the kind of creepy pro-eugenics argument that I was talking about.
Aye. Family planning is not eugenics.
The first duty of a doctor is to their patients. If you accuse a doctor of being unable or unwilling to perform a necessary service within their scope of practice for their patients, then that is quite a serious accusation, and I want you to be completely aware of its severity. Did you mean to make such an accusation?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.