gadgetlady

Yet there are cases of tubal ligation patients becoming pregnant.

I don't think the question was whether a pregnancy can occur; of course it can -- we all know someone or have heard stories of failed birth control methods, even sterilization. The question was whether tubal ligation was an abortifacient by preventing implantation. And I haven't seen any evidence that it is.

I'm not, nor have I ever, "pushed" any kind of birth control. All I did was provide factual information on the effects of the various methods discussed.

That's an interesting question. Since I've been considering a hysterectomy, I have actually been trying to research this for about 6 months now and have never been able to find any information about it. I've asked other pro-life sources and come up empty. If you have some resources for me to look at on this matter, I'd actually really appreciate it because I haven't been successful in my search. I would think, however, that for most women since a hysterectomy isn't elective but rather necessary for some medical (physical) reason, it would remove the ethical concern in this instance. But to be honest, I haven't been able to get much info on this, but not for lack of trying.

You said it was irresponsible of pro-lifers to share the facts of hormonal birth control because it might push them into using other, more unreliable methods (not your exact words, but that was the jist of it).

Yes, of course it is. But there is no thinning of the uterus side-effect of having a tubal ligation (like there is with many hormonal forms), so it is not an abortifacient.

I don't believe in the suppression of information to "protect" women. I believe women have the right to know what hormonal birth control methods do to their bodies. I also believe mothers have the right to know what is happening to their babies during an abortion (which abortion clinics fight tooth and nail -- such as regulations requiring women see their ultrasounds before aborting, etc.). At the very least, if abortion remains legal, women will be able to make truly informed decisions.

Well, she's very small so she didn't have good pregnancies. 2 c-sections. The doctor said her hips were so narrow that she would never be able to deliver, so they didn't even bother letting her go into labor. From what I understand, my uncle took care of the babies as infants (changing, feeding, holding, etc.). She is a brilliant woman but, surprisingly, is somewhat "afraid" of babies. She would never hold my kids as infants, but now that they're older she gets along with them great. I think the lack of logic in infants is what put her off -- you can't talk to them or logically figure out what's going on. That being said, once past the infant stage, she is a great mother.

I was ecstatic when she told me she thought I had a fibroid (I know, weird, but . . .). The follow-up ultrasound 3 months later showed nothing but a small cyst. I might push her more next time, but only if she could do a vaginal one (I don't want to be opened up again). Of course, now I'm changing insurance and she doesn't take my new one, so I'd have to pay out of pocket.

Ahhh. Sorry I mis-remembered. It's hard to keep track of everyone and their history. My aunt (the one who didn't like babies) had two diaphragm babies due to a tilted uterus. Then she got her tubes tied. I wish I had had that done the last time they were "in there" (during my last c-section).

I wish. My period is a full week long and I get it every 25 days. I feel like I'm bleeding almost 1/3 of my life! Plus bloating, cramps, clotting, and overall blech. And I sure would like to not have to worry about getting pregnant anymore! I keep trying to talk her into it. Fibroids run in my family and I have a tendency towards cysts as well. Sigh.

I'm anxiously awaiting menopause! I asked my gyn to do a hysterectomy but she won't. Didn't you get pregnant while on the pill (if I remember correctly?)? There's that break-through ovulation for ya'!

This is also correct information.

I agree completely. That being said, what he told her was basically accurate, albeit a bit of a strange way to word it, but she didn't have the internet to do the research when it happened (it was too long ago). Have you ever researched the link between breast cancer and abortion? Just curious.

Break-through ovulation is not uncommon when using hormonal birth control. That's why women can get pregnant using it, circumventing both the original intent (prevention of fertilization) and the secondary fall-back (making the womb inhospitable to the fertilized egg). The numbers are generally considered to be below 10% (break-through ovulation), the quantity of which are fertilized from those is unknown. The numbers increase pretty quickly when one or more pill is missed (if the pill is the method used) during the month. Why would we want to hide information from women? I thought we were all for correct medical information being provided? This isn't irresponsible at all. It's factual.

What your doctor told you was basically correct, if not technically accurate. That being said, you didn't need to avoid sex for three months -- only during the times you were fertile! I remember the 6 weeks of doctor-proscribed abstinence after delivery were the hardest thing about pregnancy (we didn't make it the entire 6 weeks after either baby). Too bad you didn't have the information about only avoiding sex surrounding ovulation to avoid 3 months of frustration :hurray:. At the very least, you could have used a condom.

Not entirely correct. From Depo-Provera® (DMPA) - McKinley Health Center - University of Illinois and generally available elsewhere as it is commonly known information: it also thins the lining of the uterus, which would make the uterus less hospitable to a fertilized egg should ovulation occur. Break-through ovulation is not uncommon with many forms of hormonal birth control; thus the secondary effect of making the womb inhospitable to the developing baby is what is considered the abortifacient.

As I said, I don't have time for this today. Have fun, everyone. I'll be back later and will try to respond to as much as I can and/or is relevant.

Mindy, there's a difference between murder and manslaughter. There's a difference between murder and killing. That's what my analogy was attempting to demonstrate. I do not have disgust or disdain for mothers who choose abortion. It's just not who I am. You can choose to see me as judgmental and that's your deal, but I know a lot of mothers who have chosen abortion IRL and not a single one of them views me that way. At all, hands down. Including the ones that I tried to talk out of abortion but they did it anyway. I know you are offended and upset and angry, but don't assume you know my heart.

Where the heck are you getting that from? I never said a woman had to be a mother to be a complete woman, and I certainly don't think green read/heard it that way. Please stop reading such venom, hatred, judgment, and disdain into my words. I'm not putting them in there. I know you're angry, but please try to calm down before dissecting what I say and reading things into it. And, btw, I think what green went through prior to her abortion, not being able to find any doctor to sterilize her, was unconscionable and criminal (she knows this -- I've said it before). If she knew she didn't want to ever be a mother, they should have honored that choice and allowed her to never have to be put in the position where she became one.

Not at all. I have an aunt who is terrified of babies, but she is a great mother. For the first year or two of her kids' lives, she let my uncle do everything,, from feeding them to changing diapers to getting up in the middle of the night to take care of them. When I had my kids, she refused to hold them until they were about 2 or 3 (I think she was afraid of dropping them). Yet, growing up, I absolutely loved her. She is a great person. She is a math professor, very logical, very intellectual, but also very nurturing -- just not to babies! Not that I know you that well, but you remind me of her. There are all sorts of specialties that we all have. Some women "appear" to be more maternal than others, but in reality every skill that we have can lend knowledge to children. There is just as much benefit received from the "traditional" mother (cooking, sewing, baking Cookies after school, etc.) as there is from the "non-traditional" mother who doesn't have those skills.

You guys are going gangbusters today and I don't have time to respond to everything, but I do want to respond to this because I hear your anger and you deserve to understand my reasoning. Imagine you are trapped in a very scary room. There are two doors. One is locked. The other one opens up to a forest that looks very intimidating and, while you know you can get through it, it's a very long path and you know it will be scary and possibly painful to make it the entire way through. There is a gun in the room, and you can shoot the lock on the other door and make it out to the open easily. A voice tells you there is someone behind the door, and if you shoot the lock you will kill them. If you choose to shoot the lock and kill the person behind it, it is murder; you had another choice, albeit painful, and you chose the option that you knew would take someone's life. But now imagine the voice tells you you can shoot through the lock and there's something behind the door, but it's not a person. You choose to shoot and find out later that it really was a person behind the door. You have killed them, but is it murder? I believe the abortionist is a murderer because he knows exactly what he's doing; he sees the body parts coming out of his "patients" every day. But I believe mothers who are scared and desperate and have been told a variety of things about the unborn are not murderers by definition because they had been convinced prior to the abortion (and often remain convinced afterwards) that the life they took was not that of a baby. I hope that explains my position on this. I emphatically do not consider anyone on this board who has had an abortion a murderer. green, I just want to say one thing to you: I think your mother did you a tremendous disservice, and I'm sorry for what you went through as a child. I think you would have made an awesome mother.

They defined them legally as 3/5 of a human being so that they could exploit them. They believed them to be human, but not fully human. This concept can be traced at least as far back as Aristotle. From the moment of conception, the unborn baby is an individual entity separate from the mother, with his or her own DNA. The baby's circulatory system is self-contained and he or she may have a different blood type than the mother. He or she has separate organs. There is no question that the baby is not "part" of the mother. It matters if in procuring an abortion she is simultaneously taking the life of another person. It is simply a philosophical comparison. And I still haven't heard from anyone what criterion they'd use to prove that a black person is fully human. Other than, "it's obvious" and "that's a hateful analogy." Sorry to inform you; I'm not an unwitting dupe of the pro-life movement. I was pro-life before I heard any of the "arguments" and before I developed my own, simply because it was patently obvious to me that in aborting a child, his or her mother is taking his or her life. To ignore that fact is to ignore elementary school biology.

So if medical technology can make a woman "unpregnant" without incident to her while simultaneously not harming the unborn baby, you'd still want her to have the decision as to whether the baby lives or dies? Then her "right" is not abortion, but the right to a dead baby.

You may not have, but others have. If unborn babies are fully human, what right do we have to kill these innocent human beings for any reason? What right do we have to deny them life for any reason other than they're physically threatening the life of another? I understand the myriad of issues surrounding unplanned pregnancies, but we don't kill people to solve social problems -- or at least we shouldn't.