Does the abortion debate reveal what some people really think about women?

seenitall

CaraMay wrote: »

A midwife or a nurse on the maternity ward?

I found they gave me conflicting advice in hospital depending on who you were talking to but I would never have allowed them patronize me like that?

LOL. Yes, I'm sure you would have been well able to stand up for yourself while on your back crying out in pain during an invasive procedure, and whilst dependent for your care on a person who is dismissing you like a child. Or you would have known right away when a medical professional is patronising you by lying to your face just in order to get rid of your concerns, you would have seen through them double-quick and 'never allowed it'. :rolleyes:

Morag

CaraMay wrote: »

Morag, pardon my question but what is a booking in appointment? Sorry if its a dumb question

The first appointment you have when you go to the maternity hospital, when you are pregnant, they start your file then, take a history all your details and the first rounds of blood works and book you in as being a patient of that hospital.

CaraMay

seenitall wrote: »

LOL. Yes, I'm sure you would have been well able to stand up for yourself while on your back crying out in pain during an invasive procedure, and whilst dependent for your care on a person who is dismissing you like a child. Or you would have known right away when a medical professional is patronising you by lying to your face just in order to get rid of your concerns, you would have seen through them double-quick and 'never allowed it'. :rolleyes:

There is no need to be so aggressive and sarky. I am entitled to a viewpoint too and have regularly called people on patronizing comments and bad manners as I am doing to you now.

Malari

seenitall wrote: »

LOL. Yes, I'm sure you would have been well able to stand up for yourself while on your back crying out in pain during an invasive procedure, and whilst dependent for your care on a person who is dismissing you like a child. Or you would have known right away when a medical professional is patronising you by lying to your face just in order to get rid of your concerns, you would have seen through them double-quick and 'never allowed it'. :rolleyes:

You are being patronising to another poster here, while also complaining about being treated condesendingly!

seenitall

CaraMay wrote: »

There is no need to be so aggressive and sarky. I am entitled to a viewpoint too and have regularly called people on patronizing comments and bad manners as I am doing to you now.

And I've regularly called people on their BS; and as that's what I've done in that post, it's no surprise you didn't take it so well.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

The first poster on this thread to do any lambasting was a prolifer who came in and called her a liar, so no, I quite disagree

I didn't actually.

I said anyone who argues that being pro-life is anti-woman is lying. The OP has said this wasn't her intention.

jaffacakesyum

philologos wrote: »

I didn't actually.

I said anyone who argues that being pro-life is anti-woman is lying. The OP has said this wasn't her intention.

It is anti-woman in my opinion regardless of the gender of the pro-lifer.

Pro-life basically believe a woman shouldn't have the right to control her own body. That sounds pretty anti-woman to me. Same if men weren't allowed rights to their own body, that would be anti-male.

Lingua Franca

pwurple wrote: »

Well, in fairness, sometimes people giving birth for the first time can have some unrealistic expectations. My birth plan was fairly simple, 'no gas please it makes me puke, but I'll take other pain relief'. This was read and adhered to...
I have seen some completely impractical birth plans that included what music be played as the child exited the birth canal, and what sort of yoga-like position they wanted to be in for it, so I understand how anyone can get a bit flippant about that sort of thing. Being shhsed is way out of line though, very unprofessional, no matter what the circumstances.

I don't think anyone is griping because they were playing Maire Brennan instead of Enya when the baby was born or that they weren't allowed to give birth in a pool in the lotus position.

In my case the midwife broke my waters before my husband arrived despite me begging her to wait, ordered an epidural for me because I went into such pain that I couldn't speak or let her touch me and let me get an epidural without first examining me to see how far I was dilated. As it turned out I was fully dilated and baby was on his way out. I'd had the epidural so late that it stopped my labour, so she took that cue to go for lunch and when she came back an hour later she had to bring in a doctor to give me an episiotomy and pull my son out with forceps, leaving him with an elongated head topped with a spectacular blood bruise for several weeks. That's not to mention the dismissive and patronising way in she spoke to me "I don't know what you're complaining for, women do this everyday without crying" being one example. I was also shhhed, and tutted at, and had eye rolls. My notes, when I saw them, were not of my experience. Things absent, things added. I did complain but I'd been one of her last patients as she worked two more days there and then left for a job in England, which may explain why she absolute didn't care.

I've seen a lot of ladies here and elsewhere giving off about the inaccuracy of their medical notes. I believe there was a thread here very recently asking about how women's medical notes related to their experience.

I've also had the pleasure of being cared for by really wonderful, caring, professional women and I believe that most of them are. But there historically there has been a strong element of "little ladies don't know what's best for them" running through the medical profession. Hopefully that is coming to an end.

seenitall

Malari wrote: »

You are being patronising to another poster here, while also complaining about being treated condesendingly!

Oh you're right, maybe I should apologise; only I've no intention of doing so as I've had it up to here of being patronised, whether directly by a nurse or indirectly by a "eh if it were me, I wouldn't have stood for it, pffft".

paperclip2

Just on the ante-natal care, a friend of mine had her son at 18 and during one of her final check-up appointments asked that it be noted she wanted an epidural during delivery.
The midwife responded with
'What! You can't be saying that now. That's like booking a panadol for a headache you might have!'

Morag

seenitall wrote: »

LOL. Yes, I'm sure you would have been well able to stand up for yourself while on your back crying out in pain during an invasive procedure, and whilst dependent for your care on a person who is dismissing you like a child. Or you would have known right away when a medical professional is patronising you by lying to your face just in order to get rid of your concerns, you would have seen through them double-quick and 'never allowed it'. :rolleyes:

Most of the books and papers which the foundation of modern obstetrics has been based on were done during a time when 'twilight births' were all the fashion. That women would not remember a thing during the birth as they were doped out of it they started in germany and then spread to the usa.

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=21&compID=75

A series of events between 1910 and 1920 set the stage for doctors to usurp the traditional role of the midwife and laid the foundation for a pathology-oriented medical model of childbirth in this country. Two reports on medical education, published in 1910 and 1912, concluded that America’s obstetricians were poorly trained. To improve obstetrics training, one report recommended hospitalization for all deliveries and the gradual abolition of midwifery. Rather than consult with midwives, the report argued, poor women should attend charity hospitals, which would serve as sites for training doctors.

Just two years later, in 1914, “twilight sleep” was introduced. Twilight sleep was induced through a combination of morphine, for relief of pain, and scopolamine, an amnesiac that caused women to have no memories of giving birth. Upper-class women initially welcomed it as a symbol of medical progress, although its negative effects were later publicized.

In 1915, Dr. Joseph DeLee, author of the most important obstetric textbook of that period, described childbirth as a pathologic process that damages both mothers and babies “often and much.” He said that if birth were properly viewed as a destructive pathology rather than as a normal function, “the midwife would be impossible even of mention.” In the first issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, DeLee proposed a sequence of interventions designed to save women from the “evils natural to labor.” The interventions included routine use of sedatives, ether, episiotomies, and forceps.

It was the 1970s before there was a shift away from those policies in the USA and the UK and due to the influence of the RC church on the maternity hospitals here it is only recently we are seeing changes in policies here with the domino scheme but so much of what is in modern birthing plans are just not possible in our hospitals due to restrictive polices and lack of resources for example it is not possible to have a waterbirth in any hospital in the country.

And this is the country that left Micheal Neary go unchecked for so long
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Neary_%28surgeon%29


and the women who were given Symphysiotomies are still waiting for justice.
http://www.thejournal.ie/symphysiotomy-survivors-gather-to-recount-stories-of-torture-673113-Nov2012/

Marie O’Connor, chairperson of SOS, describes symphysiotomy as “arguably the biggest human rights scandal in Ireland since the foundation of the State”.

“Survivors have been seeking truth and justice for over a decade. Successive governments have stonewalled, forcing our members to resort to the courts.

“These were covert, if not clandestine, operations – performed without consent – but taking a [legal] case over surgery done 50 years ago is fraught with difficulty. Setting aside the statute bar would enable all survivors to get their cases off the starting blocks, without being stymied by long running procedural battles.

“The Chairperson of SOS emphasised that the law needed to change to allow all survivors ready access to the courts. ‘The government must now lift the statute bar. While many cases are being taken against private hospitals, all of these operations were done on the State’s watch.

“The courts must be allowed to determine the truth in a timely manner. Protecting the reputation of deceased doctors should not be allowed to take precedence over the rights of living survivors. Most are in their 70s and 80s: time is not on their side.”

I know that most of the staff in our maternity hospitals today are there to look after women and to be professional but it can take a long time to undo the attitude and polices of intuitions but seeing that we now have Masters like Dr Rhona Mahony give me hope.

Whispered

pwurple wrote: »

CaraMay is on the button there about there being many shades of pro-choice, and pro-life. There is judgementalism on both sides.

I think this is true. I don't know if I would be considered pro-life or pro-choice. I would be pro-choice in certain circumstances only and have been told, quite curtly, that that means I'm not really pro-choice and how dare I call myself pro-choice when I'm not etc.

I think that pro-life people are often dismissed as being anti-women. Another thing I notice a lot is that people assume that being pro-life is based on religious reasons. For a lot of people this is not the case at all.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I didn't actually.

I said anyone who argues that being pro-life is anti-woman is lying. The OP has said this wasn't her intention.

Don't dare put words in my mouth. You have made your anti women stance clear on numerous occasions. You stick to your scripture and let the rest of us have a real discussion.

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

Don't dare put words in my mouth. You have made your anti women stance clear on numerous occasions. You stick to your scripture and let the rest of us have a real discussion.

I'm not anti-woman, that's the point. Neither are many many others who oppose abortion-by-choice.

If anything that's putting words into my mouth. Give me examples if you're going to make an absurd claim like that

pwurple

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I don't think anyone is griping because they were playing Maire Brennan instead of Enya when the baby was born or that they weren't allowed to give birth in a pool in the lotus position.

In my case the midwife broke my waters before my husband arrived despite me begging her to wait, ordered an epidural for me because I went into such pain that I couldn't speak or let her touch me and let me get an epidural without first examining me to see how far I was dilated. As it turned out I was fully dilated and baby was on his way out. I'd had the epidural so late that it stopped my labour, so she took that cue to go for lunch and when she came back an hour later she had to bring in a doctor to give me an episiotomy and pull my son out with forceps, leaving him with an elongated head topped with a spectacular blood bruise for several weeks. That's not to mention the dismissive and patronising way in she spoke to me "I don't know what you're complaining for, women do this everyday without crying" being one example. I was also shhhed, and tutted at, and had eye rolls. My notes, when I saw them, were not of my experience. Things absent, things added. I did complain but I'd been one of her last patients as she worked two more days there and then left for a job in England, which may explain why she absolute didn't care.

I've seen a lot of ladies here and elsewhere giving off about the inaccuracy of their medical notes. I believe there was a thread here very recently asking about how women's medical notes related to their experience.

I've also had the pleasure of being cared for by really wonderful, caring, professional women and I believe that most of them are. But there historically there has been a strong element of "little ladies don't know what's best for them" running through the medical profession. Hopefully that is coming to an end.

What an awful experience. So sorry this person had anything to do with being a midwife. I have never experienced that kind of thing myself. I did have an epidural top-up when I was fully dilated too though, and it made no difference to my pushing, baby was out 20 minutes later, no forceps. Everyone is different. Diving in and breaking the waters without permission though, that's not right.

I have seen what you mean with my grandfather too. He is ill. The 'carer' didn't realise I had let myself into the house and was shouting at my grandad to get up and stop messing. He spoke to him like he was a naughty child. I was horrified and told him to show some respect.

I experienced something similar during a miscarriage, when the doctor and midwife were discussing scan measurements and terms I wasn't familiar with. I asked what they were talking about and what the terms meant, and they said, 'the baby' and turned back to talk to eachother.

My point is, it's not necessarily being female, but being The Patient that has us sometimes experiencing condescension through some parts of the medical profession. I suppose with abortions, the patient is always female.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I'm not anti-woman, that's the point. Neither are many many others who oppose abortion-by-choice.

You are anti women. Nothing about your concern for a foetus over adult women, based on a 2,000 year old book and your constant evangelism on behalf of a male deity, suggests otherwise. How many born women have you helped with a crisis pregnancy?

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

You are anti women. Nothing about your concern for a foetus over adult women, based on a 2,000 year old book and your constant evangelism on behalf of a male deity, suggests otherwise. How many born women have you helped with a crisis pregnancy?

Which is laughable for afforementioned reasons. Many women are pro-life. Many of those who are aborted are female and some specifically because they are female. Abortion by choice facilitates gendercide which has even taken place in Britain.

If you want to meet people who are genuinely anti-women try asking the people who have aborted a child just because it was female.

Lingua Franca

pwurple wrote: »

I experienced something similar during a miscarriage, when the doctor and midwife were discussing scan measurements and terms I wasn't familiar with. I asked what they were talking about and what the terms meant, and they said, 'the baby' and turned back to talk to eachother.

Ack! As if it was none of your business what was going on! I'm sorry for your loss, by the way.

My point is, it's not necessarily being female, but being The Patient that has us sometimes experiencing condescension through some parts of the medical profession. I suppose with abortions, the patient is always female.

I guess so, I had Neary and his ilk in mind during my rant as well as my own first midwife and was thinking more in general terms of gynaecology and obstetrics rather than just abortion and I wasn't thinking of other groups of people who have been patronised or bullied or dismissed by medical staff. I know there's a lot of problems with carers for the elderly treating them like naughty toddlers and talking to them like they are babies, for example.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Which is laughable for afforementioned reasons. Many women are pro-life. Many of those who are aborted are female and some specifically because they are female. Abortion by choice facilitates gendercide which has even taken place in Britain.

If you want to meet people who are genuinely anti-women try asking the people who have aborted a child just because it was female.

More guff. Your scripture provides you with some pretty laughable opinions. How many women with crisis pregnancies have you helped? Are women who abort foetuses incompatible with life wrong to do so? When you get pregnant, I'll be sure to tell you what to do with your body.n

matrim

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

It is anti-woman in my opinion regardless of the gender of the pro-lifer.

Pro-life basically believe a woman shouldn't have the right to control her own body. That sounds pretty anti-woman to me. Same if men weren't allowed rights to their own body, that would be anti-male.

I hate this argument.

The core of all abortions arguments is when do you think human life begins. After that point it's not just the life of the mother to consider. Yes, if medically necessary for the health of the mother there should be a choice, and personally I'd be in favour of any abortion up to about 12 - 16 weeks. But after whatever point people decide life begins there are 2 people to consider

Should a 7 months pregnant woman be allowed to say "I'm sick of being pregnant, cut the baby out of me" even thought there is no medical reason to do it? At 7 months the baby will likely live but being born so early will likely damage it's health.

The law is full of cases where one persons right to do something is withdrawn because doing that thing will damage other peoples health / well-being. This is just another an extention of that. The fact that it only effects women doesn't make it anti-woman it just means that physically women are the only one's that can give birth

lazygal

matrim wrote: »

I hate this argument.

The core of all abortions arguments is when do you think human life begins. After that point it's not just the life of the mother to consider. Yes, if medically necessary for the health of the mother there should be a choice, and personally I'd be in favour of any abortion up to about 12 - 16 weeks. But after whatever point people decide life begins there are 2 people to consider

Should a 7 months pregnant woman be allowed to say "I'm sick of being pregnant, cut the baby out of me" even thought there is no medical reason to do it? At 7 months the baby will likely live but being born so early will likely damage it's health.

The law is full of cases where one persons right to do something is withdrawn because doing that thing will damage other peoples health / well-being. This is just another an extention of that. The fact that it only effects women doesn't make it anti-woman it just means that physically women are the only one's that can give birth

The core of abortion is whether a woman has the right to decide to remain pregnant.

Morag

matrim wrote: »

Yes, if medically necessary for the health of the mother there should be a choice, and personally I'd be in favour of any abortion up to about 12 - 16 weeks. But after whatever point people decide life begins there are 2 people to consider.

Should a 7 months pregnant woman be allowed to say "I'm sick of being pregnant, cut the baby out of me" even thought there is no medical reason to do it? At 7 months the baby will likely live but being born so early will likely damage it's health.

The law is full of cases where one persons right to do something is withdrawn because doing that thing will damage other peoples health / well-being. This is just another an extention of that. The fact that it only effects women doesn't make it anti-woman it just means that physically women are the only one's that can give birth

I have the exact same stance and happily call myself pro choice and an abortion rights activist.

Most people I have meet over the last 6 months are the same and the notion of pro choice people
who agree with no limits 3rd trimester abortion with out an underlying medical reason is false
and set up as a deterrent to stop people like yourself thinking they can say they are prochoice or pro (reasonable) abortion rights.

Earthhorse

lazygal wrote: »

The core of abortion is whether a woman has the right to decide to remain pregnant.

Do you think that pro-choicers who are against aborting in the third tri-mester are also anti-women? I'm genuinely wondering as I'm trying to follow your logic here.

lazygal

Earthhorse wrote: »

Do you think that pro-choicers who are against aborting in the third tri-mester are also anti-women? I'm genuinely wondering as I'm trying to follow your logic here.

A third trimester abortion would only be carried out in the case of extreme medical emergency and at that stage might produce a viable live foetus. If the foetus can live independently from the uterus, of course it should be helped. I'm not against such treatment being carried out - if I needed it done it should be legally allowed. I doubt you'd find many women would get past 24 weeks of pregnancy who didn't want to be pregnant though. The vast, vast majority of abortions take place before 12 weeks.

Earthhorse

lazygal wrote: »

A third trimester abortion would only be carried out in the case of extreme medical emergency and at that stage might produce a viable live foetus. If the foetus can live independently from the uterus, of course it should be helped. I'm not against such treatment being carried out - if I needed it done it should be legally allowed. I doubt you'd find many women would get past 24 weeks of pregnancy who didn't want to be pregnant though. The vast, vast majority of abortions take place before 12 weeks.

Sure but that doesn't answer my question. If people wish to restrict a woman's ability to control their own bodies, specifically by disallowing the choice to get an abortion, at any stage, even the late stages of pregnancy, are they anti-women, in your opinion?

lazygal

pwurple wrote: »

Well, in fairness, sometimes people giving birth for the first time can have some unrealistic expectations. My birth plan was fairly simple, 'no gas please it makes me puke, but I'll take other pain relief'. This was read and adhered to. i was spoken to with respect and told what was going on at all points. I am delighted with both the safe birth and our healthy child. I did encounter a snotty midwife on the wards, but the rest were fantastic professional people.

My friends thought my birth plan was silly, and didn't have enough choices made on what I did and didn't want in various scenarios, but honestly, I had never done it before and I wanted to take full advantage of the vastly experienced people available to help me, rather than limiting what they could do.

I have seen some completely impractical birth plans that included what music be played as the child exited the birth canal, and what sort of yoga-like position they wanted to be in for it, so I understand how anyone can get a bit flippant about that sort of thing. Being shhsed is way out of line though, very unprofessional, no matter what the circumstances.

CaraMay is on the button there about there being many shades of pro-choice, and pro-life. There is judgementalism on both sides.

I saw a young-ish woman, I'd say she was about 20, being utterly and completely dismissed by two midwives during an antenatal class. She was patted on the head, so to speak, and used as an example of the 'silliness' of some women in front of a large group when she asked about birth plans. She seemed genuinely interested in having some sort of plan and my heart broke when I saw how she was treated, pretty much as a child who should let the people who know what they are doing be in charge, regardless of any of her wishes. I actually wrote to the master after that experience because it annoyed me so much.

lazygal

Earthhorse wrote: »

Sure but that doesn't answer my question. If people wish to restrict a woman's ability to control their own bodies, specifically by disallowing the choice to get an abortion, at any stage, even the late stages of pregnancy, are they anti-women, in your opinion?

Yes. Only women who are pregnant know what's right for them. The same way only men who wish to get a vasectomy know what's right for them. One can dress it up any way one likes, but denying women abortion is antiwomen. No one should be forced to avail of any medical procedure, but some people think its okay to force women to undergo pregnancy, labour and childbirth. And that is antiwomen.

Earthhorse

lazygal wrote: »

Yes. Only women who are pregnant know what's right for them. The same way only men who wish to get a vasectomy know what's right for them. One can dress it up any way one likes, but denying women abortion is antiwomen. No one should be forced to avail of any medical procedure, but some people think its okay to force women to undergo pregnancy, labour and childbirth. And that is antiwomen.

Thanks for clarifying.

I think, in answering this you have answered your opening post; no matter what way I phrase my own beliefs about abortion you will regard me as anti-women. It doesn't matter what I think about other areas of life - how women are represented in media, how they are treated when it comes to the matter of rape, their equal status in the workplace etc. If I hold a particular stance on abortion (which is that it should be restricted but not wholly) then I am anti-women in your eyes.

philologos

Earthhorse wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying.

I think, in answering this you have answered your opening post; no matter what way I phrase my own beliefs about abortion you will regard me as anti-women. It doesn't matter what I think about other areas of life - how women are represented in media, how they are treated when it comes to the matter of rape, their equal status in the workplace etc. If I hold a particular stance on abortion (which is that it should be restricted but not wholly) then I am anti-women in your eyes.

And every woman who is pro-life is self-hating or something. It's absolutely absurd. It seems that there's only respect for women that agree with her.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

And every woman who is pro-life is self-hating or something. It's absolutely absurd. It seems that there's only respect for women that agree with her.

I never said anti women choice hate themselves. If they don't want an abortion, no one should force them to. But neither should people, male or female, force any woman to be pregnant. That's as absurd as relying on a 2,000 year old book as a guide for modern obstetric law.