delicate subject - abortion

starrystarry

likelyfran wrote: »

Right, so if something offends someone personally it's fine for them to report it, but if they are actually being altruistic/compassionate by sticking up for someone else in reporting something, that's a failing?? Strange logic!! :rotfl::rotfl:

She might think she's being compassionate, might be doing it with the best of intentions, but...it just appears patronising to me.

This thread has been running for several days. Marywooyeah has been contributing willingly. If it becomes too upsetting for her I'm sure she's capable of saying so, or just leaving the discussion.

Has anyone actually asked marywooyeah if she wants to stop the discussion? Perhaps it's helping her to talk about this.

You can't join a discussion part way through then decide unilaterally that it's too upsetting for someone else so you're going to stop everyone from discussing it.

Humphrey10

poet123 wrote: »

In fact anyone who feels that strongly should seek a permanent method of contraception.

I have done. And my GP's attitude was along the line of "you're just a silly young woman, you must want children, you just don't know it yet, go away and breed". That was a few years ago though, it's probably time to try again.
And sterization isn't a 100% successful rate of contraception anyway.

Shovel_Lad

Humphrey10 wrote: »

I have done. And my GP's attitude was along the line of "you're just a silly young woman, you must want children, you just don't know it yet, go away and breed". That was a few years ago though, it's probably time to try again.
And sterization isn't a 100% successful rate of contraception anyway.

Indeed, female sterization has a 1 in 200 lifetime failure rate.

Male sterization has 1 in 700-1000 lifetime failure rate.

http://www.cks.nhs.uk/contraception/background_information/effectiveness_of_contraceptives#

poet123

Humphrey10 wrote: »

"when are you going to settle down and have children?" "don't you feel your biological clock ticking?" "don't leave it too late" "how many children are you planning to have?" "I bet holding my baby is making you feel broody" etc. Questions such as these are not uncommon, as a childless woman.
The default view of some people is woman = baby machine.

Not quite the same as your emotive rant then?;)

Humphrey10

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Yeah you're right, I probably should have said "Anti children" or to be more exact, "anti pieces of repugnant parasitical flesh which live inside me"

I personally would hate to be pregnant, that doesn't make me 'anti children', it just means I don't ever want to be pregnant...

poet123

Humphrey10 wrote: »

I have done. And my GP's attitude was along the line of "you're just a silly young woman, you must want children, you just don't know it yet, go away and breed". That was a few years ago though, it's probably time to try again.
And sterization isn't a 100% successful rate of contraception anyway.

Then for goodness sake show him that you are not what you think he thinks, and stand your ground. If you are not prepared to do that then frankly you illustrate his point. Change GP, or go private, it costs about £400 I believe.

Humphrey10

poet123 wrote: »

Not quite the same as your emotive rant then?;)

Yes exactly the same. All those comments come from people who assume women must want to have children, because "that's what women are for". They don't ask "do you intend to have children?", they ask "when are you going to have children?".

coolcait

QUOTE=Fire Fox;55748085]


Depends what you imagine I mean by identifying with pro-choice.

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough in my comments. You put forward your personal opinion on [paraphrasing] 'enforcing contraception on people under 24 who are not in a stable relationship/trying for a baby/celibate'.

I wondered how the idea of 'enforcement' in terms of sexual and reproductive health fits in with a [general/generic] 'viewpoint of pro-choice'. Not whether or not you personally identify with that viewpoint.

Personally, I feel that enforcing contraception on people is a step towards eugenics - a word mentioned by another poster. Hence my reaction to the suggestion.


With that in mind why should anyone under the age of 24 who is not in a stable relationship/ trying for a baby and not celibate not be using contraception? They should be using a barrier method to protect themselves from STDs, that is already part of the sexual health guidelines. The smoking legislation was designed to protect people from having others unhealthy choices inflicted upon them, reduce the burden on the NHS and make smoking less socially acceptable, widespread contraception with an opt out clause could be seen as along the same lines.[/QUOTE]

As noted above.

My personal viewpoint is that we need to do a lot more to ensure that people take proper care of themselves in terms of preventing the transmission of STIs and pregnancy - if they do not wish to be pregnant and do not wish to make someone else pregnant.

I do believe that people should take the time to read the information leaflet which comes in the box with their chosen contraceptive, or in the information given out by their 'contraception provider'. That to me is commonsense rather than perfection .

But, I also believe that those leaflets should be written in plain English. Put the warnings at the top, and the 'how it works' at the bottom.

We need to put far, far more effort into educating men about their responsibilities in using condoms; and just as much extra effort into educating women about the need to use condoms to protect against STIs, as well as using contraception to protect against unwanted pregnancies.

Yet, still I balk at the idea of enforced contraception.

Welshwoofs

likelyfran wrote: »

Right, so if something offends someone personally it's fine for them to report it, but if they are actually being altruistic/compassionate by sticking up for someone else in reporting something, that's a failing?? Strange logic!! :rotfl::rotfl:

It's not strange logic at all, it's bleeding obvious. Being offended for yourself is a known - you know what upsets you. Being offended on behalf of someone else is just ridiculous. Jumping on a thread you've had no prior input in on a subject you state you have no interest in, purely to trumpet that you've reported the thread in case someone, somewhere is upset is...well ludicrous really.

poet123

Welshwoofs wrote: »

It's not strange logic at all, it's bleeding obvious. Being offended for yourself is a known - you know what upsets you. Being offended on behalf of someone else is just ridiculous. Jumping on a thread you've had no prior input in on a subject you state you have no interest in, purely to trumpet that you've reported the thread in case someone, somewhere is upset is...well ludicrous really.

And rather patronising, as it seems to assume the poster concerned cannot report what she sees as offensive.