Abortion Providers

[tiredmom]

Just something for you all to chew on...One of my good friends adopted a child via foster adopted 9 years ago. The child was born addicted to crack and the biological mother had 6 other children. All the other children were taken way and in foster care. This was a person who chose to get pregnant because if she was pregnant she received welfare benefits...i.e. money for her crack. The mother continued to use crack among other drugs during the whole duration of her pregnancy. Now compare that to a person who is using TAB for BC, as some of the other posters were using as examples. Chose the lesser of the 2 evils. Now my friend’s child has a lot of problems but she is a great, wonderful, loving, patient person. What gets me is that there are so many children like her son but they are stuck in foster care because nobody wants to adopt them because they are not white and perfect. Like in politics, sometimes you have to choose what you believe to be the lesser of the two evils.

But would you not give those wonderful, patient people a chance at having a child? There are so many people waiting for the "perfect, white newborn" as you pointed out. I worked for a maternity counseling/adoption agency while doing my undergrad work. It was amazing to me that once you talked to the adoptive parents a bit, most were willing to look at not just the "ideal child". Those tended to be the ones with a child already (my own n=60 or so), not the "been trying since we got married" couples. I think as providers, we should discuss adoption as a serious option with women... it's really underutilized. In my 2+ years with the agency - we had one baby that stayed in foster care for more than 1 week, and it was a CNS malformation kid - who eventually was adopted by an amazing couple.
How many of you folks actually bring up adoption when presented with a patient asking about abortion? My own limited experience hasn't had anyone do it so far... does it happen elsewhere?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LADoc00]

Lesser of 2 evils? Ive heard alot of arguments for abortion/choice (what euphemism your cause supports) but I havent heard the "lesser of 2 evils" stance. Thats a new one.

What do you do for a living? Oh well, the lesser of 2 evils mainly. Oh, how interesting...(runs away)

What happens when you dont want to do evil? Or you wake up and say, wow what a wonderful morning, I dont feel as evil as I did yesterday! Or today Im feeling slightly less evil than before, so Im going to abort 1 of a pair twins.

 

[Flea girl]

Lesser of 2 evils? Ive heard alot of arguments for abortion/choice (what euphemism your cause supports) but I havent heard the "lesser of 2 evils" stance. Thats a new one.

What do you do for a living? Oh well, the lesser of 2 evils mainly. Oh, how interesting...(runs away)

What happens when you dont want to do evil? Or you wake up and say, wow what a wonderful morning, I dont feel as evil as I did yesterday! Or today Im feeling slightly less evil than before, so Im going to abort 1 of a pair twins.

What I detest is when people do not read what I have posted. So are you saying that it is okay for crack addicts to use the welfare system to get drugs? Because that is what I am getting from you by your comment. Do you actualy think that person cares what they are doing to their bodies much less the unborn fetus? I recall stating that there are no easy solutions...Thank you so much for taking my comments out of context. In case you did not catch the sacrasm, that statement was dripping in it. Get off your high horse. Frankly, I am in no mood to debate this issue with the likes you, you have come here as a troll and I am done.

 

[Flea girl]

But would you not give those wonderful, patient people a chance at having a child? There are so many people waiting for the "perfect, white newborn" as you pointed out. I worked for a maternity counseling/adoption agency while doing my undergrad work. It was amazing to me that once you talked to the adoptive parents a bit, most were willing to look at not just the "ideal child". Those tended to be the ones with a child already (my own n=60 or so), not the "been trying since we got married" couples. I think as providers, we should discuss adoption as a serious option with women... it's really underutilized. In my 2+ years with the agency - we had one baby that stayed in foster care for more than 1 week, and it was a CNS malformation kid - who eventually was adopted by an amazing couple.
How many of you folks actually bring up adoption when presented with a patient asking about abortion? My own limited experience hasn't had anyone do it so far... does it happen elsewhere?

Sorry, to burst your bubble but I have personaly counseled my patients on ALL the options when they have come to me with an UNWANTED pregnancy. I really enjoyed the comment on got when I brought up adoption, as an option, to a Bipolar teenager... "Ruin my body for nothing! No way!" I hope that you were able to detect the sarcasm when I stated "enjoyed". Because it seems to me that some people here are having a hard time with. Let me tell you another story...We got a call when I was in the ED stating that we were getting a transfer of a newborn infant that the B. M. was giving up parental rights. It tooks a few weeks to even secure foster parents for the infant, much less any interest for adoption. Yes, the infant did test positive for crack. So, what I am saying is that I am not againist adoption, I just have issues with the whole system. Most people want white healthy kids, not children of color, having health issues, or being born addicted to drugs. Not to mention, if the child is not an infant....then forget it. That child's chance of getting adopted just got even worse. Look, everyone has their own ideas, stances, whatever you what to call it on abortion...My personal thoughts are that I am glad that there are places to get legal abortions, because whether we like it or not if it does becomes illegal do you honestly think that these women will not get one? I have personal seen what can happen if someone wants an abortion but can not get one via the legal avenues.

 

[LADoc00]

What I detest is when people do not read what I have posted. So are you saying that it is okay for crack addicts to use the welfare system to get drugs? Because that is what I am getting from you by your comment. Do you actualy think that person cares what they are doing to their bodies much less the unborn fetus? I recall stating that there are no easy solutions...Get off your high horse. Frankly, I am in no mood to debate this issue with the likes you, you have come here as a troll and I am done.

I merely poke fun at your rhetorical skills. A high horse I do not mount. Concept of a "lesser of 2 evils" is ripe for comedic relief, you must admit.

Im feeling diet evil (just 1 calorie of evil) at the moment so I will refrain from further inciting your anger.

 

[Flea girl]

I merely poke fun at your rhetorical skills. A high horse I do not mount. Concept of a "lesser of 2 evils" is ripe for comedic relief, you must admit.

Im feeling diet evil (just 1 calorie of evil) at the moment so I will refrain from further inciting your anger.

Unfortunately, I an feeling a bit red bull evil...but I can admit that something got lost in the translation and we can leave it at that.

 

[Leukocyte]

This has nothing to do with anything, but whenever this pro-"choice"/Pro-life debate comes up it reminds me of the South Park episode in which Mrs. (Mr.) Garison goes to her (his) Ob/Gyn to get an abortion. The funny thing is that as soon as Mr. Garison gets a sex change, she (he) goes to get an abortion, as if getting an abortion is an important part of being a female (even if there is no reason for the abortion at all). You guys must see that episode. It is very funny. Please note that pro-"choice" people might not notice the humor (actually, the whole point was to make fun of the pro-"choice" people).

 

[Poety]

This has nothing to do with anything, but whenever this pro-"choice"/Pro-life debate comes up it reminds me of the South Park episode in which Mrs. (Mr.) Garison goes to her (his) Ob/Gyn to get an abortion. The funny thing is that as soon as Mr. Garison gets a sex change, she (he) goes to get an abortion, as if getting an abortion is an important part of being a female (even if there is no reason for the abortion at all). You guys must see that episode. It is very funny. Please note that pro-"choice" people might not notice the humor (actually, the whole point was to make fun of the pro-"choice" people).

I thought that was hilarious, and kinda pathetic, but very funny episode. funny in a sick way.

 

[pruritis_ani]

This has nothing to do with anything, but whenever this pro-"choice"/Pro-life debate comes up it reminds me of the South Park episode in which Mrs. (Mr.) Garison goes to her (his) Ob/Gyn to get an abortion. The funny thing is that as soon as Mr. Garison gets a sex change, she (he) goes to get an abortion, as if getting an abortion is an important part of being a female (even if there is no reason for the abortion at all). You guys must see that episode. It is very funny. Please note that pro-"choice" people might not notice the humor (actually, the whole point was to make fun of the pro-"choice" people).

Well, I am pro-choice, and I thought that show was hilarious...nothing like Ms. Garrison shopping for tampons.

 

[3dtp]

My wife and I looked into adoption. Both white, had an extremely long waiting list for adoption because the present thinking is that it would not do for white folks to adopt non-white babies because we would not be able to undertand their cultural differences. So, adoptable babies wait in foster homes, or in hospitals, placement pending.

We have friends who did adopt, both PhDs, university profs, leaders in their respective fields. Shortly before their adoption (which took several years), the social worker met with them one last time. He asked, if this couple could deal with a baby who wasn't as bright as they were. My friend said, that this shouldn't be a problem at all, they'd love whatever baby they ended up with and he'd be satisfied if the baby was only bright enough to be say, a social worker. He told me that his wife nearly killed him after that!

 

[LADoc00]

My wife and I looked into adoption. Both white, had an extremely long waiting list for adoption because the present thinking is that it would not do for white folks to adopt non-white babies because we would not be able to undertand their cultural differences. So, adoptable babies wait in foster homes, or in hospitals, placement pending.

We have friends who did adopt, both PhDs, university profs, leaders in their respective fields. Shortly before their adoption (which took several years), the social worker met with them one last time. He asked, if this couple could deal with a baby who wasn't as bright as they were. My friend said, that this shouldn't be a problem at all, they'd love whatever baby they ended up with and he'd be satisfied if the baby was only bright enough to be say, a social worker. He told me that his wife nearly killed him after that!

Ive never understood adoption. The whole biological reproduction, genetic legacy, yes makes some sense to me, but adoption?! What so the the kid can turn 18, give you the bird and search out their "true" parents? F--- that! Why not kick me in the balls, steal a quarter of million bucks and age me 10 years and be done with it!

Adoption=shenanigans, pure and simple.

 

[3dtp]

Ive never understood adoption. The whole biological reproduction, genetic legacy, yes makes some sense to me, but adoption?! What so the the kid can turn 18, give you the bird and search out their "true" parents? F--- that! Why not kick me in the balls, steal a quarter of million bucks and age me 10 years and be done with it!

Adoption=shenanigans, pure and simple.

No, so that precisely that this does not happen. Perhaps if someone had paddled your sorry butt before you grew up to be an egocentric spoiled brat and the world might be a better place for it.

 

[LADoc00]

No, so that precisely that this does not happen. Perhaps if someone had paddled your sorry butt before you grew up to be an egocentric spoiled brat and the world might be a better place for it.

Are you offering to paddle my butt??

 

[tiredmom]

Flea girl -
I did not intend to offend anyone by asking if providers offered information about abortion. I was trying to find out if it actually occurs, because I've not seen any of the residents/attendings in our program ask about it (even in the family planning clinic), nor the private physicians I worked with prior to medical school. So, there wasn't a bubble to pop. Most providers don't keep up with changes in adoption practice. There was a booth at the ACOG chapter scientific meeting I attended recently by an agency that provides educational programs for physicians and office staff on adoption practices and how to bring it up in a positive manner. The delays you mentioned in getting a foster parent might be related to whatever route the SW took to getting placement, as if it's a drug + baby, must go through CPS, at least in TX.

3dtp - I'm sorry to hear y'all experienced some of the stupidity that can be found in the adoption beaurocracy. It is so provider dependent. We had a few interracial placements - and every white couple that expressed interest in accepting a non-white infant was fully encouraged to explore it. For some reason unknown to me, its really difficult to recruit African american and hispanic adoptive parents. So, it makes sense to allow cross-racial adoptions - to me anyways, but I also don't see a problem with homosexual couples adopting either. We eventually would like to adopt, possibly a sibling group. I'm not sure we would pass the home study required, as our son with autism is pretty difficult at times, especially with strangers. A side note, if you are still interested, I would try a different agency - PM me if you want a name.

 

[trustwomen]

A woman who has had an abortion, even an early 2nd TM AB has a Relative Risk of 2.67x the likelihood of incompetent cervix in the 2nd TM and miscarriage (for which John Edwards will sue the OB for wrongful death) in future pregnancies over women who have not. These were not discussed in any detail.

What are the risks of incompetent cervix following a delivery? That is the only alternative, for a pregnant woman... When you look at the risk of future incompetent cervix with abortion, you must logically compare it to that of women who give birth, not women who just don't get pregnant at all, right?

 

[trustwomen]

Also, wanted to bounce some thoughts off the old abortion providers on SDN because frankly Ive always been curious. For years as a pathologist I get your leftovers, these cheesecloth looking abortion bags with squishy parts. Basically you see NOTHING of this, but Im there shifting through the muck occasionally finding an arm or leg or miniature heart etc. you get the picture. But of course I chose this and the origin of the word pathology is actually pathos logos or the study of suffering (and not disease as people think) so Im a little wierd to begin with....enough of the rambling...on occasion, I have gotten BIG suckers, Im talking 6-8 month fetuses for TABs (or in path lingo therapeutic abortion, tho you have to admit it sure as hell wasnt therapeutic for the fetus), these freak me the hell out like nothing else does. Sometimes they come in cut to heck too, and Im there putting em back together like humpty dumpty...now, please succintly, how can you do that and then go home and cuddle your kids with the same hands...just curious. Im NOT judging, just curious how the old mind is working there. Because Im there in the lab in near PTSD over the whole damn thing........

I've worked in a few abortion clinics, including the path lab. The providers do see all fetuses over 14 weeks, because of the technique used. First-trimesters, maybe not. I don't know where you work, but I sincerely doubt you've seen aborted fetuses past 24-26 weeks (i.e. 6 months) since abortion is just not available at that stage, with very very few exceptions (like a few hundred a year, across the country). You are probably referring to the "big suckers" between 20-24 weeks (which are still less than 1% of abortions, by the way). It may be more than 1% of what you see, since you are in a large city (LA, I presume) and later abortions are only available in large cities for the most part - so you could get a disproportionate number of them.

I think I had no problem working path lab with fetuses up to 24 weeks (handling them, packaging them in formaldehyde-filled containers, washing the instruments, etc) in large part because I also got the chance to do counseling. When you meet these women, when you realize how desperate they are, it becomes clear that the abortion is necessary and serves the greater good. I simply remind myself that there is no possibility of fetal consciousness at that stage; it didn't suffer, and the woman (and her family) will be spared lots of suffering thanks to the abortion. It's not easy and it's not for everyone, I'll give you that.

Now let the "heartless evil bitch" flaming start, I've got my suit on...

 

[trustwomen]

The problem i have with MS4C and NARAL is that they want med students and residents to be FORCED to observe/train in abortions.

Thats absolute BS.

Ob/gyn residency should have abortion training STRICTLY FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT. But the activists at MS4C and NARAL thats not good enough. They want their dogma forced down our throats

I think they only want it for OB/GYNs, no? So, it's easy... pick another specialty.

 

[trustwomen]

During my third year, I saw a 26 year old "patient" who had 9 (nine) prior abortions. She was coming in to have her tenth done. My chief resident at that time was a 40 year old African American southern baptist. During the exam, she (my cheif resident) made the "patient" watch the U/S screen and said to her "look, this is his heart beating", "look how he is moving his little arms and legs". She made the "patient" cry, but the "patient" still went on to sign the consent form.

Yes, this "patient's" ORGASM is more important than the life of her babies.

For paragraph 1: what your chief resident did was unethical, cruel, and unwarranted. The fact that the woman signed the consent form, in tears, should demonstrate that she really could not have a baby at that time.

For line 2: did you speak to this woman at all? what do you know about her sex life? does she even have orgasms? did she say that birth control prevents her from having an orgasm - so every time she has sex, she actually tells her partner beforehand "don't worry, sugar, the abortion appointment is already made"? or is it possible that you really have no idea why this woman is getting pregnant without wanting to? do you even know what "external locus of control" is, or how you develop it? and, considering how "much" you obviously respect this woman, would it have been that much better if she were coming in for her tenth delivery?

Geez.

 

[trustwomen]

So, for those folks who use TABs for birth contol (I, too, have seen multiple women with 7-9 previous abortions in their late 20's) - what do you think about a limit on the number of TABs someone could have? That might persuade some to consider a less risky way to PREVENT pregnancy?

It would lead to a lot more unwanted children, that's all. If pregnancy/sex is not something a woman has ever really had control over, i.e. she has been conditioned into learned helplessness (and many women are, not just from other cultures), limiting abortion would simply mean even less chances for women to climb out of their bad situations.

 

[LADoc00]

I've worked in a few abortion clinics, including the path lab. The providers do see all fetuses over 14 weeks, because of the technique used. First-trimesters, maybe not. I don't know where you work, but I sincerely doubt you've seen aborted fetuses past 24-26 weeks (i.e. 6 months) since abortion is just not available at that stage, with very very few exceptions (like a few hundred a year, across the country). You are probably referring to the "big suckers" between 20-24 weeks (which are still less than 1% of abortions, by the way). It may be more than 1% of what you see, since you are in a large city (LA, I presume) and later abortions are only available in large cities for the most part - so you could get a disproportionate number of them.

I think I had no problem working path lab with fetuses up to 24 weeks (handling them, packaging them in formaldehyde-filled containers, washing the instruments, etc) in large part because I also got the chance to do counseling. When you meet these women, when you realize how desperate they are, it becomes clear that the abortion is necessary and serves the greater good. I simply remind myself that there is no possibility of fetal consciousness at that stage; it didn't suffer, and the woman (and her family) will be spared lots of suffering thanks to the abortion. It's not easy and it's not for everyone, I'll give you that.

Now let the "heartless evil bitch" flaming start, I've got my suit on...

Definitely the big ones are RARE as hell, Ive seen 2 (both dunno I guessed at around 22 weeks I think). Now Ive seen lots of the big 'uns but those were fetal autopsies in the University setting, not TABs.

As I said I dont sit in judgment of any man or woman, merely posed a question whether all sits well in your mind, which it seems it does. Fine. No need for a flame suit!

I take some (yet minimal) issue with your concept of the "greater good", similar to the "lesser of 2 evils" B.S., its a simple way of rationalizing something that morally might be objectionable. Dunno, I love my work, it seems (??) as if OBs do abortions but hate it..how can you make a career out of doing stuff you hate?

I have another hypothesis...crazy...could it be that some abortion providers might indeed love what they do. I want to throw out that provocative thought for everyone. There is such a wide range of human psychological paradigms why not an abortion provider paradigm?? It doesnt neccessarily have to be someone who pulled the legs off insects as a kid, but could, I dont know.

Maybe, stay with me this is crazy theoretical stuff...performing an abortion produces a similar rush in some providers like the thrill of burning ants with magnifying glasses. I remember doing it when I was kid (not abortions but killing ants), knowing it wasnt nice to kill things but kinda of tripping in the fact I got to select which ants got zapped. Something about that experience sounds like it could transfer to abortions.

Or, hmmm, could it be that some women resent the societal demands of having to bear kids and be responsible and doing abortions is way to rebel against this. Maybe you dont feel control over your life, but in some small way each abortion is where you can exercise ultimate power.

The thing I trip on is that abortion is such a Nietzsche-like struggle for the meaning of it all, religion vs. anti-religion.

Abortion IS one of the truest forms of Nietzsche's Der Wille zur Macht or "Will to Power", which states life drives not only for self-fulfillment but to exercise power. While anti-abortion camps are the classic example of Schopenhauer's "Will to Live" principle, in which life is motivated by its own development without exercising control or will.


What you all think??

 

[trustwomen]

I'd argue here that there is a difference. A woman coming in for repeated abortions and someone actually doing them over and over, is not the same as someone continuing to smoke through a trach, or an alcoholic with cirrhosis. Here, we're talking about affecting another life, depending on your views about when a fetus is an actual life or not.

What about women who have kid after kid after kid, either in a drug-fueled haze or in the context of an abusive relationship?

Women who choose abortion are doing so because if they didn't, they would be "affecting another life" by bringing into the world unwanted and unprepared-for. They are refusing the "easy way out" towards social acceptability ("I'm a parent, therefore I'm automatically a great person"... you know the type) and possibly even financial stability (what few social services there are, give much more to people with children).

 

[LADoc00]

What about women who have kid after kid after kid, either in a drug-fueled haze or in the context of an abusive relationship?

Women who choose abortion are doing so because if they didn't, they would be "affecting another life" by bringing into the world unwanted and unprepared-for. They are refusing the "easy way out" towards social acceptability ("I'm a parent, therefore I'm automatically a great person"... you know the type) and possibly even financial stability (what few social services there are, give much more to people with children).

Dunno, to me that is classic lebensunwertes Leben agrument. Does it hold validity?? Does life have no meaning if it enters into the world without all the material comforts and support we would expect?

 

[trustwomen]

I take some (yet minimal) issue with your concept of the "greater good", similar to the "lesser of 2 evils" B.S., its a simple way of rationalizing something that morally might be objectionable. Dunno, I love my work, it seems (??) as if OBs do abortions but hate it..how can you make a career out of doing stuff you hate?

I have another hypothesis...crazy...could it be that some abortion providers might indeed love what they do. I want to throw out that provocative thought for everyone. There is such a wide range of human psychological paradigms why not an abortion provider paradigm?? It doesnt neccessarily have to be someone who pulled the legs off insects as a kid, but could, I dont know.

Maybe, stay with me this is crazy theoretical stuff...performing an abortion produces a similar rush in some providers like the thrill of burning ants with magnifying glasses. I remember doing it when I was kid (not abortions but killing ants), knowing it wasnt nice to kill things but kinda of tripping in the fact I got to select which ants got zapped. Something about that experience sounds like it could transfer to abortions.

Or, hmmm, could it be that some women resent the societal demands of having to bear kids and be responsible and doing abortions is way to rebel against this. Maybe you dont feel control over your life, but in some small way each abortion is where you can exercise ultimate power.

The thing I trip on is that abortion is such a Nietzsche-like struggle for the meaning of it all, religion vs. anti-religion.

Abortion IS one of the truest forms of Nietzsche's Der Wille zur Macht or "Will to Power", which states life drives not only for self-fulfillment but to exercise power. While anti-abortion camps are the classic example of Schopenhauer's "Will to Live" principle, in which life is motivated by its own development without exercising control or will.


What you all think??

re. greater good. I don't see abortion as an evil, lesser or otherwise. I see it as necessary, yet preventable, surgery. It can be used for evil (like someone forcing a woman to get an abortion she doesn't want... which is usually "caught" in counseling and prevented, fortunately). It can also serve the goal of good; there are so many examples of this, I couldn't possibly name them all here. I did post a heck of a lot on the abortion thread (in Topics in Healthcare) about this.

Most abortion providers I know do love their work. Not for any of your ant-burning or Nietzchean stuff, I find that ridiculous (sorry). They love it because they know that they are changing their patients' lives for the better. Their patients are SO grateful to them (OK, maybe there's a "saviour complex" in some providers). A great deal of them also began their careers before Roe v. Wade, and worked in the "abortion wards" in the ED... they used to call them RBC, for "red blanket case", all the dying women being rolled in, bleeding through everything. The providers who remember this are older now, which is why the average age of a provider is so old (and why so many of them are male - men made up a higher proportion of doctors back then). There's a great book called "Doctors of Conscience" by Carole Joffe, where she interviews a whole bunch of abortion providers about why they do it.

Some women do resent the societal expectation to bear kids, sure. I think some men probably resent being expected to father kids, also. I don't think that factors into becoming an abortion provider; almost all providers (that I know) are parents. BTW, I don't accept the premise that childbearing is more "responsible" than abortion. Not just for macro environmental reasons, either (though the ZPGers have a point, admit it)... but because there is much more potential for irresponsibility (and real harm) from reckless childbirth than from reckless "abortion-getting".

 

[trustwomen]

Dunno, to me that is classic lebensunwertes Leben agrument. Does it hold validity?? Does life have no meaning if it enters into the world without all the material comforts and support we would expect?

Ack. I'm not up on my Nietzsche, so I googled this.

You are assuming that an insentient fetus which is (by necessity) attached to a woman's body is a "person", first of all. Once a baby is born, of course its life has meaning, and deserves as much of a place in this world as anyone else (you won't find many right-wingers - or Nietzscheans - among pro-choice people). However, if a woman is pregnant - has a fetus inside her uterus - and decides that she is not ready for a child (or another child), what is the morally right thing to do? (This is a separate question to "what can be legally enforced upon her", by the way. Legally, the principle of bodily autonomy ensures that she would have no obligation to donate - or lend - any part of her body in order to benefit another.) I believe that she is morally justified in terminating her pregnancy. Others might not. I'm fine with that, as long as they don't try to impose their opinion on pregnant women. I've counseled women who wanted to keep their babies, where I've personally felt that the situation was an impending trainwreck and an abortion would be better for all concerned... but I've NEVER deigned to tell anyone what they should do, or impose my views on such a personal decision.

I don't support genocide, eugenics, "racial cleansing", or for that matter social darwinism. I'm as much of a soft-hearted lefty (and about as far away from Nietzsche) as you'll ever meet. The argument you cited states that some groups have lost their claim to life. Fetuses never had one in the first place. Jews didn't live inside the bodies of their oppressors.

You must have seen first-trimester embryos, LADoc (which represent 90% of abortions). Can you honestly say that they have a "right" to use someone's body parts against their will? (Hell, even a 7-year-old doesn't have the right to your kidney, or even your blood).

 

[trustwomen]

Definitely the big ones are RARE as hell, Ive seen 2 (both dunno I guessed at around 22 weeks I think). Now Ive seen lots of the big 'uns but those were fetal autopsies in the University setting, not TABs.

And the fetal autopsy cases are the ones that antis so often proudly photograph and display, claiming that this is the "true face" of abortion. One guy even goes around with a 5-month stillborn, thrusting it into women's faces as they enter a clinic, saying "this is your baby". Charming, no?

I've seen a lot more than two at 20-24 weeks; probably a few hundred. I worked in a big-city clinic for three years, we saw a disproportionate number of women in their second trimester - as do all clinics where later procedures are actually available (a small minority of clinics). I also counseled a lot of these women, and worked in the recovery room also. I have a lot of stories. Trust me when I say that the later the pregnancy, the more desperate the need for an abortion. The "prom dress" thing is a nasty myth.

 

[Leukocyte]

For paragraph 1: what your chief resident did was unethical, cruel, and unwarranted. The fact that the woman signed the consent form, in tears, should demonstrate that she really could not have a baby at that time.

For line 2: did you speak to this woman at all? what do you know about her sex life? does she even have orgasms? did she say that birth control prevents her from having an orgasm - so every time she has sex, she actually tells her partner beforehand "don't worry, sugar, the abortion appointment is already made"? or is it possible that you really have no idea why this woman is getting pregnant without wanting to? do you even know what "external locus of control" is, or how you develop it? and, considering how "much" you obviously respect this woman, would it have been that much better if she were coming in for her tenth delivery?

Geez.

Whats up with that tone man? You speak as if you know this "patient".
We (my cheif and I) interviewed this "patient"....Did you?

I would rather not go into the details of her social history, but let me just simply say that she is a "professional" who will allow you to not use a condom if your "donation" is high enough.

 

[LADoc00]

Ack. I'm not up on my Nietzsche, so I googled this.

You are assuming that an insentient fetus which is (by necessity) attached to a woman's body is a "person", first of all. Once a baby is born, of course its life has meaning, and deserves as much of a place in this world as anyone else (you won't find many right-wingers - or Nietzscheans - among pro-choice people). However, if a woman is pregnant - has a fetus inside her uterus - and decides that she is not ready for a child (or another child), what is the morally right thing to do? (This is a separate question to "what can be legally enforced upon her", by the way. Legally, the principle of bodily autonomy ensures that she would have no obligation to donate - or lend - any part of her body in order to benefit another.) I believe that she is morally justified in terminating her pregnancy. Others might not. I'm fine with that, as long as they don't try to impose their opinion on pregnant women. I've counseled women who wanted to keep their babies, where I've personally felt that the situation was an impending trainwreck and an abortion would be better for all concerned... but I've NEVER deigned to tell anyone what they should do, or impose my views on such a personal decision.

I don't support genocide, eugenics, "racial cleansing", or for that matter social darwinism. I'm as much of a soft-hearted lefty (and about as far away from Nietzsche) as you'll ever meet. The argument you cited states that some groups have lost their claim to life. Fetuses never had one in the first place. Jews didn't live inside the bodies of their oppressors.

You must have seen first-trimester embryos, LADoc (which represent 90% of abortions). Can you honestly say that they have a "right" to use someone's body parts against their will? (Hell, even a 7-year-old doesn't have the right to your kidney, or even your blood).

Put aside abortion for one minute here, you touched on a very very VERY interesting question:

Women who choose abortion are doing so because if they didn't, they would be "affecting another life" by bringing into the world unwanted and unprepared-for

The inherent sentiment in your statement above is that if the proper conditions arent met (supportive home life, a mother not on drugs etc), then the life is not worth living. Im not talking eugenics, racial theory, bell curve or any perversion of lebensunwertes leben that the German political theorists engaged in. [lebensunwertes leben was never intended to be applied to Jews, gypsies or gays, it was a simple right to die issue presented to Hitler by a medical society. Later on it would be warped and corrupted to fit political goals]

Put that aside, Im asking do you believe that there are some lives simply so horrific, so underpriveleged, so disadvantaged that is better them never to have existed than be born and endure?

This isnt as simple as lefty vs right wing, neocon vs. liberal. That is a BS distinction!! More important is how you answer the question above *There is no right or wrong answer.

Moving on to abortion, not only do you have lebensunwertes leben but also the Will to Power vs. Will to Live. To you the POWER of choice trumps all, because without power you dont feel fulfilled. Look around, things like 'I am woman, hear me roar' or 'girlpower' are common place in Western civilization. Is abortion a power struggle? Yes, most certainly. All would agree. Once again, Im stating observation not passing judgement. Many, many people including our founding fathers would argue without power, liberty and freedom, it is better to be dead (in essence Nietzsche's Der Wille zur Macht).

People in the Will to Live camp are at the opposite spectrum, feeling life even life lived under oppression, in crappy conditions or even in slavery can be just as satisfying as a life of privelage. (I never really took this philosphy seriously until I read Pauline Reage's Story of O, which I consider one of the greatest books ever written and by a very outspoken French feminist too!).

On one hand you have people who feel the power and liberty are a neccessity and life secondary while on the otherhand, there are people who feel all life has value and that value trumps liberty.

That is unresolvable, there is no compromise. Both sides would kill to protect and impose their views on the opposite camp, the question is who would win?? I like to be on the winning side.

 

[LADoc00]

.

Most abortion providers I know do love their work. Not for any of your ant-burning or Nietzchean stuff, I find that ridiculous (sorry). They love it because they know that they are changing their patients' lives for the better. Their patients are SO grateful to them (OK, maybe there's a "saviour complex" in some providers). A great deal of them also began their careers before Roe v. Wade, and worked in the "abortion wards" in the ED... they used to call them RBC, for "red blanket case", all the dying women being rolled in, bleeding through everything. The providers who remember this are older now, which is why the average age of a provider is so old (and why so many of them are male - men made up a higher proportion of doctors back then). There's a great book called "Doctors of Conscience" by Carole Joffe, where she interviews a whole bunch of abortion providers about why they do it.

Some women do resent the societal expectation to bear kids, sure. I think some men probably resent being expected to father kids, also. I don't think that factors into becoming an abortion provider; almost all providers (that I know) are parents. BTW, I don't accept the premise that childbearing is more "responsible" than abortion. Not just for macro environmental reasons, either (though the ZPGers have a point, admit it)... but because there is much more potential for irresponsibility (and real harm) from reckless childbirth than from reckless "abortion-getting".

Ohhhh, you really hit on something there :

more potential for irresponsibility (and real harm) from reckless childbirth than from reckless abortion-getting

There is more potential for harm from reckless birth than reckless non-birth (using a political neutral term), right? Take that further, seriously, I doubt you will like where it goes. But of course I dont know you, maybe you do....

I need to read that book, thanks for mentioning it. I would definitely argue there is a power issue, that similar to surgeons saving a limb or police stopping a crime, providers get a certain rush from performing abortion. Of course who would admit this, even to him/herself?

Interesting to think about. I once tripped for days thinking about if I had a GF who got pregnant, could I do the abortion if needed. Crazy.

 

[trustwomen]

Whats up with that tone man? You speak as if you know this "patient".
We (my cheif and I) interviewed this "patient"....Did you?

I would rather not go into the details of her social history, but let me just simply say that she is a "professional" who will allow you to not use a condom if your "donation" is high enough.

Actually, I was contesting the notion that YOU "know" the patient. I've counseled a few thousand women seeking abortions. How 'bout you? (Medical interviews usually don't get you the same detail, BTW.) I don't know what was really behind her situation - but I'm fairly certain that you don't either, and furthermore that my guess is better.

If she was a prostitute, then your claim that she is "avoiding" birth control (and therefore having abortions) in order to have orgasms is even more ridiculous. Prostitutes almost never have orgasms with clients. She doesn't deserve your chief resident's cruelty just because she sells sex.

 

[LADoc00]

Actually, I was contesting the notion that YOU "know" the patient. I've counseled a few thousand women seeking abortions. How 'bout you? (Medical interviews usually don't get you the same detail, BTW.) I don't know what was really behind her situation - but I'm fairly certain that you don't either, and furthermore that my guess is better.

If she was a prostitute, then your claim that she is "avoiding" birth control (and therefore having abortions) in order to have orgasms is even more ridiculous. Prostitutes almost never have orgasms with clients. She doesn't deserve your chief resident's cruelty just because she sells sex.

You counseled a few THOUSAND women seeking an abortion?? Holy shiat. Are you serious? That is seriously trippy. How can i get that gig, seriously. I would love to pick some brains for a book Im writing. Is that a volunteer thing???

 

[Leukocyte]

Actually, I was contesting the notion that YOU "know" the patient. I've counseled a few thousand women seeking abortions. How 'bout you? (Medical interviews usually don't get you the same detail, BTW.) I don't know what was really behind her situation - but I'm fairly certain that you don't either, and furthermore that my guess is better.

I do not care who you are, and do not tell me what I know and do not know. We were with the patient, you are just assuming. I am not against abortions. I am against its abuse.

Say whatever you want! Go nuts!

 

[Poety]

Holy moly,look at her roll!

I'm not getting into the abortion debate. As I stand, it must be legal to provide a safe service for those women that pursue it. Plain and simple. I don't see it as right unless its to protect the health of a woman - thats just it in my eyes.

 

[Leukocyte]

I don't see it as right unless its to protect the health of a woman - thats just it in my eyes.

I am with you.

 

[trustwomen]

Put that aside, Im asking do you believe that there are some lives simply so horrific, so underpriveleged, so disadvantaged that is better them never to have existed than be born and endure?

Moving on to abortion, not only do you have lebensunwertes leben but also the Will to Power vs. Will to Live. To you the POWER of choice trumps all, because without power you dont feel fulfilled. Look around, things like 'I am woman, hear me roar' or 'girlpower' are common place in Western civilization. Is abortion a power struggle? Yes, most certainly. All would agree. Once again, Im stating observation not passing judgement. Many, many people including our founding fathers would argue without power, liberty and freedom, it is better to be dead (in essence Nietzsche's Der Wille zur Macht).

People in the Will to Live camp are at the opposite spectrum, feeling life even life lived under oppression, in crappy conditions or even in slavery can be just as satisfying as a life of privelage. (I never really took this philosphy seriously until I read Pauline Reage's Story of O, which I consider one of the greatest books ever written and by a very outspoken French feminist too!).

On one hand you have people who feel the power and liberty are a neccessity and life secondary while on the otherhand, there are people who feel all life has value and that value trumps liberty.

That is unresolvable, there is no compromise. Both sides would kill to protect and impose their views on the opposite camp, the question is who would win?? I like to be on the winning side.

Re. the first question: there is a difference between "is it better to die" and "is it better to never have been born". The former, probably not. (Although I'm not sure I could impose that view on a patient in chronic, unendurable, and untreatable pain, if he told me he felt differently). The latter, I think, is unanswerable. I do believe that women should be able to choose the circumstances in which they have children. They should get to decide this question, for those who will be coming through their bodies into this world. Not the choice of life vs. death; the choice of life vs. never having lived. I make this same choice every time I faithfully contracept. I would never feel morally justified in deciding this question for society, or any group in society. I feel we must leave this question (as it pertains to fetuses being better off never having lived, or not) up to the women who become pregnant. Meaning I would never ever force anyone to have an abortion, either.

Without power I don't feel fulfilled? Wrong. I'm a woman in this society, I know what it's like to be powerless. Sure, I prefer to have independence -power over myself, not power over others - but I wouldn't want to die if I lost it. Hell, I'd have offed myself long ago, otherwise. I don't think abortion is a power struggle, inasmuch as a power struggle happens between two people or two groups, no? Abortion, inasmuch as it is an exercise of power, is only an exercise of power over one's own body.

Do you really think that people today would consider a life lived without liberty to be just as satisfying as a life lived with it? I suppose there's the Atwoodesque "freedom from" as opposed to "freedom to", meaning that oppression could be "fulfilling" inasmuch as it means you don't have to assume the "burden" of independence - but I suspect that such ideas of "happiness in slavery" are promoted by those who do have liberty, as a sort of opium of the masses. Some women do tell me that they wish abortion and adoption were illegal, so that they wouldn't have to feel guilty about wanting to keep their babies. I tell them to stop feeling guilty and keep their babies, if that's what they want.

I don't see it as "power vs. life". I don't consider fetuses to be a "life", and certainly not when compared to, say, cows or dogs, which do have awareness and independent viability.

 

[trustwomen]

You counseled a few THOUSAND women seeking an abortion?? Holy shiat. Are you serious? That is seriously trippy. How can i get that gig, seriously. I would love to pick some brains for a book Im writing. Is that a volunteer thing???

I was an abortion counselor, activist, and medical assistant for a total of five years. I've spent the last three years working in a homeless shelter for young women, mostly drug addicts and sex workers. I doubt you'd get "that gig", but I suppose you could pick my brain and pm me if you want.

 

[trustwomen]

There is more potential for harm from reckless birth than reckless non-birth (using a political neutral term), right? Take that further, seriously, I doubt you will like where it goes. But of course I dont know you, maybe you do....

I need to read that book, thanks for mentioning it. I would definitely argue there is a power issue, that similar to surgeons saving a limb or police stopping a crime, providers get a certain rush from performing abortion. Of course who would admit this, even to him/herself?

Interesting to think about. I once tripped for days thinking about if I had a GF who got pregnant, could I do the abortion if needed. Crazy.

For the first, when I take it further, I get the following: it is better to have too few people born, than too many. Where's the problem there?

You can argue it is a power issue all you want, and if you start claiming that it's a "subconscious" power rush, then how can I possibly argue with you? It's a statement that by definition ends any debate. I, on the other hand, prefer to think that the providers I know and have read about, who are self-aware, reflective, intelligent, introspective people for the most part, actually know why they do it. And I'll trust them when they tell me. Seems safer and less pretentious than telling them why they "really" do it.

You may have felt the "power rush" when contemplating your potential pregnant girlfriend, so I can see how you might extrapolate that to everybody else, but I doubt you'd ever want to be an actual abortion provider. Am I wrong?

 

[trustwomen]

Holy moly,look at her roll!

I'm not getting into the abortion debate. As I stand, it must be legal to provide a safe service for those women that pursue it. Plain and simple. I don't see it as right unless its to protect the health of a woman - thats just it in my eyes.

You sound like you're pro-choice and anti-abortion. You don't personally like it or agree with it, but you don't believe in restricting others' rights to it. Meaning you're cool by me.

 

[trustwomen]

I do not care who you are, and do not tell me what I know and do not know. We were with the patient, you are just assuming. I am not against abortions. I am against its abuse.

Say whatever you want! Go nuts!

You said her orgasm was more important to her than the life of her children. I'd like to know what is your basis for that statement. I have a hard time imagining that she would have told you that during her interview. So I'm asking you, not telling you: how do you know this?

I'm also "against" people having repeat preventable surgeries, BTW. I think prevention is much better. But I wouldn't deny them the surgery; or be cruel and make them cry.

 

[LADoc00]

I don't see it as "power vs. life". I don't consider fetuses to be a "life", and certainly not when compared to, say, cows or dogs, which do have awareness and independent viability.

Cows and dogs?! Do cows and dogs have self-awareness, hell no. Yes they are aware and react to their environment, but self-awareness no. You are venturing into foriegn lands young OB, steer away, steer away.

Cows and dogs dont self-actualize, dont seek fulfillment. Sheesh, anthrax spores have independent viability! That is a non-issue.

CCU patients dont have independent viability and often dont have awareness....you created the cliche paper tiger argument there. I can punch holds in it that crap half drunk...

The power vs. life argument is your best bet for logically debating and defending abortion. You cant use the claim fetuses are not life past the age of extrauterine viability, it holds no water. AND you cant begin redefining what life is to suit your philosophical purpose.

For example, you cant claim abortion is acceptable yet be morally outraged at your neighbor killing their cat. The cat is their "fetus", a charge and responsibility over which they exercise the choice to feed and shelter. The cat is dependant on them and therefore needs to live and die by their will alone. You would have honor their choice, however much you liked seeing that cat play in your yard or hop along your fence. You cant have it both ways, trustwoman..you cant play in the guardian of choice yet create the rules for who enters....

 

[trustwomen]

Cows and dogs?! Do cows and dogs have self-awareness, hell no. Yes they are aware and react to their environment, but self-awareness no. You are venturing into foriegn lands young OB, steer away, steer away.

Cows and dogs dont self-actualize, dont seek fulfillment. Sheesh, anthrax spores have independent viability! That is a non-issue.

CCU patients dont have independent viability and often dont have awareness....you created the cliche paper tiger argument there. I can punch holds in it that crap half drunk...

The power vs. life argument is your best bet for logically debating and defending abortion. You cant use the claim fetuses are not life past the age of extrauterine viability, it holds no water. AND you cant begin redefining what life is to suit your philosophical purpose.

For example, you cant claim abortion is acceptable yet be morally outraged at your neighbor killing their cat. The cat is their "fetus", a charge and responsibility over which they exercise the choice to feed and shelter. The cat is dependant on them and therefore needs to live and die by their will alone. You would have honor their choice, however much you liked seeing that cat play in your yard or hop along your fence. You cant have it both ways, trustwoman..you cant play in the guardian of choice yet create the rules for who enters....

Cows and dogs have complete cerebral cortexes, if memory serves... so they have awareness (pain, environment, etc) and can process sensory data. I never said self-awareness (though there is debate about this when it comes to some other animals). And if you need "self-actualization" and "seeking fulfillment" to be "aware", how do the aforementioned happy slaves fit in?

When someone has no higher brain activity, and no capacity for independent life, are they not considered dead? Terri Schiavo? I know it's controversial, but...

A cat can survive without using its owner's body to do so. It can often even survive without its owners' presence at all; abandoned street cats attest to this. A nonviable fetus cannot, ever... by definition. Past the age of extrauterine viability (24-26 weeks), abortion is pretty much a non-issue anyway. And yes, the debate changes at that point.

 

[Leukocyte]

You said her orgasm was more important to her than the life of her children. I'd like to know what is your basis for that statement. I have a hard time imagining that she would have told you that during her interview. So I'm asking you, not telling you: how do you know this?

"Her orgasm" here mean "her rush". Not the literal meaning of the word orgasm. Her orgasm, or "her rush" that she gets from giving poeple "orgasms", which she gets paid for, and willing to not use a condom for. It is called Abstract thinking vs Concrete thinking. It is used to illustrate a point.

You came here aggressively attacking, and accusing me of things, and I do not know you and I never met you. That is not cool.

I am going to try to be polite, and not do the same to you (assume who you are, and tell you what you know and what you do not know). I have lived in the ghetto as a minority for too long, and I have very low tolerance for people who just want to talk ****.

 

[LADoc00]

For the first, when I take it further, I get the following: it is better to have too few people born, than too many. Where's the problem there?

You can argue it is a power issue all you want, and if you start claiming that it's a "subconscious" power rush, then how can I possibly argue with you? It's a statement that by definition ends any debate. I, on the other hand, prefer to think that the providers I know and have read about, who are self-aware, reflective, intelligent, introspective people for the most part, actually know why they do it. And I'll trust them when they tell me. Seems safer and less pretentious than telling them why they "really" do it.

You may have felt the "power rush" when contemplating your potential pregnant girlfriend, so I can see how you might extrapolate that to everybody else, but I doubt you'd ever want to be an actual abortion provider. Am I wrong?

I will admit in the contemplation of aborting the fetus of my theoretically pregnant GF, there is a rush, however morally repugnant and bizarre the whole scenario seems. Chuck Palahnuik touches on it in Fight Club, the book (edited out of the film for being too over the top) and I have seen other published pyschological studies that have referenced the "abortion rush" phenomena, even feminist materials. In fact, there is even a subset of serial abortion addicts described, people who have a pyschosexual obsession with conceiving then aborting. This number is FAR larger than alot people believe and likely that is the type person Leukocyte may have been describing. Trust me, trustwoman, there is part of this whole thing you are skimming, sensing on the surface but not looking directly at. Your lying to yourself about this...you interviewed supposedly thousands of women seeking abortions, Ive deposed a single exGF post abortion and written nearly 200 pages just on her!


Hmmm-Scott Peterson, that is guy who would interesting to talk to, both an abortion provider (in a sense) and murderer. Did he feel different about each? Seriously, that is a trippy question.

 

[trustwomen]

"Her orgasm" here mean "her rush". Not the literal meaning of the word orgasm. Her orgasm, or "her rush" that she gets from giving poeple "orgasms", which she gets paid for, and willing to not use a condom for. It is called Abstract thinking vs Concrete thinking. It is used to illustrate a point.

You came here aggressively attacking, and accusing me of things, and I do not know you and I never met you. That is not cool.

I am going to try to be polite, and not do the same to you (assume who you are, and tell you what you know and what you do not know). I have lived in the ghetto as a minority for too long, and I have very low tolerance for people who just want to talk ****.

From what I know of prostitutes, they don't get a "rush" from giving people orgasms for money. Now, this one might have been different... Did she say that she got a rush, or any pleasure at all, specifically from not using contraception? Or did she do it because she is in survival mode, and the extra money was too valuable to pass up? (i.e. she used bad judgment and took a stupid risk?)

And wow, maybe I'm just especially dense, but your statement seemed awfully concrete to me - "orgasm" was even capitalized. Did anyone else "catch" that this really didn't mean an orgasm after all?

If I was attacking anyone, it was your chief resident. Sure, I objected to your unfounded (sorry, "abstract") statements. I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked - that was not my intent. I just wanted you to think about where your assumptions were coming from... I don't "just want to talk ****".

 

[Leukocyte]

From what I know of prostitutes, they don't get a "rush" from giving people orgasms for money. Now, this one might have been different... Did she say that she got a rush, or any pleasure at all, specifically from not using contraception? Or did she do it because she is in survival mode, and the extra money was too valuable to pass up? (i.e. she used bad judgment and took a stupid risk?)

And wow, maybe I'm just especially dense, but your statement seemed awfully concrete to me - "orgasm" was even capitalized. Did anyone else "catch" that this really didn't mean an orgasm after all?

If I was attacking anyone, it was your chief resident. Sure, I objected to your unfounded (sorry, "abstract") statements. I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked - that was not my intent. I just wanted you to think about where your assumptions were coming from... I don't "just want to talk ****".

Wow man! Wow. You are just too much.

I noticed you are a pre-med. I hope no one asks you about your views on abortion or prostitution on your interviews, for your sake!

Anyways, good luck.

 

[LADoc00]

From what I know of prostitutes, they don't get a "rush" from giving people orgasms for money. Now, this one might have been different... Did she say that she got a rush, or any pleasure at all, specifically from not using contraception? Or did she do it because she is in survival mode, and the extra money was too valuable to pass up? (i.e. she used bad judgment and took a stupid risk?)

And wow, maybe I'm just especially dense, but your statement seemed awfully concrete to me - "orgasm" was even capitalized. Did anyone else "catch" that this really didn't mean an orgasm after all?

If I was attacking anyone, it was your chief resident. Sure, I objected to your unfounded (sorry, "abstract") statements. I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked - that was not my intent. I just wanted you to think about where your assumptions were coming from... I don't "just want to talk ****".

Ive spoken with prostitutes extensively as part of a monitoring I did with a psychology grad student at clinic I happened to be the MD director of (long story how that happened)...suffice it to say there are DEFINITELY prostitutes who orgasm with johns, in fact I would say nearly 100% of those I spoke with had in fact done so, not every time, but often enough it was considered a very nice perk. And there are a subset of prostitutes (that like every other woman), who reach orgasm easier sans condom and enjoy being ejaculated in. That is a fact, I would cite the thesis but it isnt in e-format. Now as for your down and out hookers you may have worked with, I dunno. These were all women/girls in their late teens to 20s, reasonably attractive and coherent enough to be interviewed.

OOo the thesis was centered around decontructing the "prostitute myth" that hookers were mainly women with no other skills, addicts or other such societal throw aways you are led to believe in feminist media. This guy did a fantastic job of showing that in fact many if not most call girl type prostitutes enjoyed their work, were very sexually satified and would not choose another profession if offered a choice even if it PAID MORE. They enjoyed meeting new people and small things... like some fixated on the satisfaction of actually seeing the face of men reach orgasm with them, somehow that provided very powerful motivators of self worth, more so than actually getting paid. In conclusion, it is very possible that if legalized and if the societal taboos were removed a far higher % of women would be call girls, even if the overall pay was far less.

 

[Leukocyte]

Ive spoken with prostitutes extensively as part of a monitoring I did with a psychology grad student at clinic I happened to be the MD director of (long story how that happened)...suffice it to say there are DEFINITELY prostitutes who orgasm with johns, in fact I would say nearly 100% of those I spoke with had in fact done so, not every time, but often enough it was considered a very nice perk. And there are a subset of prostitutes (that like every other woman), who reach orgasm easier sans condom and enjoy being ejaculated in. That is a fact, I would cite the thesis but it isnt in e-format. Now as for your down and out hookers you may have worked with, I dunno. These were all women/girls in their late teens to 20s, reasonably attractive and coherent enough to be interviewed.

OOo the thesis was centered around decontructing the "prostitute myth" that hookers were mainly women with no other skills, addicts or other such societal throw aways you are led to believe in feminist media. This guy did a fantastic job of showing that in fact many if not most call girl type prostitutes enjoyed their work, were very sexually satified and would not choose another profession if offered a choice even if it PAID MORE. They enjoyed meeting new people and small things... like some fixated on the satisfaction of actually seeing the face of men reach orgasm with them, somehow that provided very powerful motivators of self worth, more so than actually getting paid. In conclusion, it is very possible that if legalized and if the societal taboos were removed a far higher % of women would be call girls, even if the overall pay was far less.

I agree with you. There are many misconceptions about prostitutes.

 

[trustwomen]

Wow man! Wow. You are just too much.

I noticed you are a pre-med. I hope no one asks you about your views on abortion or prostitution on your interviews, for your sake!

Anyways, good luck.

I got into med school, do I still count as pre-med? They sure did ask about abortion in my interviews - it's all over my resume, how could they not? I guess they liked my answers or something, cause I got in...

I dunno what you mean by too much. I am quite passionate about this issue, true.

 

[trustwomen]

Ive spoken with prostitutes extensively as part of a monitoring I did with a psychology grad student at clinic I happened to be the MD director of (long story how that happened)...suffice it to say there are DEFINITELY prostitutes who orgasm with johns, in fact I would say nearly 100% of those I spoke with had in fact done so, not every time, but often enough it was considered a very nice perk. And there are a subset of prostitutes (that like every other woman), who reach orgasm easier sans condom and enjoy being ejaculated in. That is a fact, I would cite the thesis but it isnt in e-format. Now as for your down and out hookers you may have worked with, I dunno. These were all women/girls in their late teens to 20s, reasonably attractive and coherent enough to be interviewed.

OOo the thesis was centered around decontructing the "prostitute myth" that hookers were mainly women with no other skills, addicts or other such societal throw aways you are led to believe in feminist media. This guy did a fantastic job of showing that in fact many if not most call girl type prostitutes enjoyed their work, were very sexually satified and would not choose another profession if offered a choice even if it PAID MORE. They enjoyed meeting new people and small things... like some fixated on the satisfaction of actually seeing the face of men reach orgasm with them, somehow that provided very powerful motivators of self worth, more so than actually getting paid. In conclusion, it is very possible that if legalized and if the societal taboos were removed a far higher % of women would be call girls, even if the overall pay was far less.

First, you said "call girl types" which are a well-paid, highly autonomous minority of prostitutes... Some women might in fact fit the profile you describe, although of course I'd like to see the thesis - especially the methods. I might find it hard to believe that these "autonomous, in-control" women could wind up having 10 unplanned pregnancies and crying when shamed by a doctor (wouldn't they be more likely to tell the doctor off instead?)

The shelter where I work has close ties to a local sex workers' rights organization called Stella, and I've spoken to their staff and board on many occasions (a few of them work at the shelter also). Stella believes that sex work should be treated like any other work, that it's a choice etc... but even they recognize that independence and control over your work (what high-class call girls enjoy) is hard to come by for most sex workers - so they give "empowering" tips. They also recognize that most sex workers do use substances while working, often to help them get through it (this includes strippers too) and so they also include harm reduction advice.

I don't buy the theory that social taboos are what prevent women from becoming call girls. After all, social taboos are fewer in more "developed" countries in Western Europe, but I don't think there is a higher proportion of sex workers in those populations (in Amsterdam, for instance, most sex workers are immigrants from countries with both stronger taboos and greater poverty). And I'm pretty sure there is a strong taboo in Asian cultures, but look at the rates in Thailand. One could probably demonstrate a strong negative correlation between the (non-prostitution) financial opportunities for women, and prostitution rates.

 

[trustwomen]

I have seen other published pyschological studies that have referenced the "abortion rush" phenomena, even feminist materials. In fact, there is even a subset of serial abortion addicts described, people who have a pyschosexual obsession with conceiving then aborting. This number is FAR larger than alot people believe and likely that is the type person Leukocyte may have been describing. Trust me, trustwoman, there is part of this whole thing you are skimming, sensing on the surface but not looking directly at. Your lying to yourself about this...you interviewed supposedly thousands of women seeking abortions, Ive deposed a single exGF post abortion and written nearly 200 pages just on her!

Psychosexual obsession with conceiving then aborting? I'll inquire about any experiences with this on an abortion providers listserv I'm on. What do you think the answer will be? We just so happen to be discussing "repeaters" right now, and the consensus as to causation is pretty much "external locus of control". I have counseled (I'm estimating) several dozen women who were seeking repeat abortion (i.e. really repeat - more than 5). Some did indeed have symptoms of mental illness, but not "psychosexual obsession with conceiving then aborting", as far as I can recall. Most were from cultures where abortion was a common method of birth control - Russia, China, Eastern Europe and the like. I'd love to see the references to the "abortion rush phenomenon" studies.

If you tell me I am lying to myself or not really looking at the whole situation, by definition I cannot argue with that. I don't think you are correct, but of course, by your logic I wouldn't think that anyway, right? I interviewed (not "supposedly") between two and three thousand women seeking abortions, by my calculations. You have n=1, correct? (Although "in depth", good for you). I really really dislike arguing from "status", honestly (though I can see how this might not be evident from this thread) but why is it hard for you to conceive that your perception might be the one that is flawed and/or incomplete?

 

[LADoc00]

Check this out:http://www.drhern.com/fulltext/preg/paper.htm

Is Pregnancy Really Normal?

by WARREN M. HERN, M.D.
Accordingly, the open recognition and legitimation of pregnancy as an illness would be consistent with the individual self-interest of those experiencing pregnancy, good standards of medical practice, and the continued survival of human and other species.

Basically in half-assed bombastic page long essay, Dr. Hern put forth the idea that pregnancy is a pathologic state and he is in fact the "cure". Seriously this is guy a lunatic.

Seriously FRINGE crap. People wonder why religious radicals sit around in Bible study cleaning guns and foaming at the mouth...

Been searching for my reference on serial aborters, but half my personal library is in storage. I had a whole abortion bookset at one point.