Bush, G15P5's and other things that drive you crazy...

[EctopicFetus]

So, quick questions:

If one were to ask for a either "yes" or "no" answer, without explanations (not unlike the "gut feeling" we have for programs), what would your answers be to these questions (having said that, feel free to expound):

1. Do you think George Bush is stupid?
2. Do you think the current administration is delusional?

My answers would be yes to both questions.

I personally think Bush is an absolute idiot, and I'm not one to harp on academic achievement. I just don't get the feeling--the confidence, the conviction--that my Commander-in-Chief--can, on his own, analyze even a newspaper clipping better than I can. I'm not saying I'm smarter than most people, I'm just saying I think I'm smarter than our President. I mean, in every way. I mean, I really think I am smarter than George Bush. And as lousy a President I would be, I would be better than he is, one on one, without being surrounded by cronies.

And yes, I think at times members of the administration have appeared delusional (the press secretary comes to mind).

I guess as a EM program, I gut-feeling for George Bush would be: don't go there.

Yes - he isnt the brightest bulb but IMO I cant recall anyone either Dem or Republican who impressed me at all this last election. Kerry is a blathering *****.. and to add it all up he picked a Doctor hater as his running mate.

No - I dont think they are delusional, rather I think they are smart as a fox, not Bush per se but his people.. Think about how much they have gotten through that they wanted.. 2 Supreme court judges and even with all the missteps they still have a lot of support in the US.. perhaps not for the war but his overall approval rating is decent.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[12R34Y]

The classic pro-choice argument. It didn't even take but a few posts to throw in the rape/incest card.

Typically its used as an emotional appeal that is designed to deflect serious consideration of the pro-life agenda. Rape and incest are both the classic "what if" scenarios.

pro-choice person...."how can you deny a hurting, young, innocent girl safe medical care and freedom from the terror of rape/incest by FORCING her to keep the pregnancy......"

A very emotional argument, but in reality doesn't mean much.

In reality the amount of rapes/incest that result in pregnancies is not even a minute fraction of the amount of abortions occuring every year.

One of my favorite quotes of all time.

"to argue for abortion on demand from the hard cases of rape and incest is like trying to argue for the elimination of traffic laws from teh fact that one might have to violate some of them in rare instances, such as when one's spouse or child needs to be rushed to the hospital."

If all we did was had law that would restrict abortion for all reasons EXCEPT rape/incest we would save millions of babies from being aborted.

We'll definately be cruising right past path on this one.

again.......stir....stir....stir

Oh, and once Roe v. Wade gets overturned the liberals on the board say that "legislators will just enact law to change it."

Wrong. it's called judicial activism. Currently congress passes all kinds of laws through legislation and all it takes is one judge to say it is unconstitutional and its gone.

ie...ban on partial birth abortion that OVERWHELMINGLY passed through both houses of congress only for a activist liberal judge in lincoln, nebraska to say it was unconstitutional.

so.........my point is that if you DID indeed draw up legislation one of OUR judges would just call THAT unconstitutional. It tends to work both ways. We just have the benefit of stacking the courts with lifers who are conservative.

My point being that it might be pretty painful to be a liberal in this country to the tune of about 30 years or so.

later

 

[EctopicFetus]

12R34Y,

Interesting.. of course if they really wanted to pass something they could just throw in a constitutional amendment if they really wanted it passed. Truth is if enough people want something.. then they can have it..Per the Harris poll about 65% of people dont want Roe V Wade overturned.. Also I realize if it WERE overturned the percentage would drop (since people dont want change) but IMO it would still be over 50%. Probably my guess 57% or so.. I think the reality is that the pro-choice people would have a fit.. Also since over 50% of college students are now women (meaning they will make more $$ and therefore have more power) I dont see something that I would assume a larger percentage of women than men support being tossed. IMO it is wishful thinking this would change. My wife who is Pro-Life has even said that she thinks abortion is wrong and morally reprehensible but she doesnt think that she should impose HER moral values on others..

 

[CS_22]

Well CS one of the very interesting things (possible thread shift?) about the abortion issue aka the "life" issue.

Strange that conservatives think that killing a fetus is not ok, same for having an older person try to take their lives or have it ended by an MD, but at the same time find it ok to kill murderers.

Whereas the liberals, think it is not OK to kill murderers but are just fine with letting old people die and allow abortions.

FWIW I am all for Abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia.. Hence I am an independent.

Interesting indeed... Its funny, cause I believe that in order to be pro-life, you should be consistent in believing so. Therefore, I am against abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia. I feel that I personally would be a hypocrite to argue against abortion but support the death penalty.

Hey EF, I can't wait to see the updated thread count after today!!

CS

 

[EctopicFetus]

In reality the amount of rapes/incest that result in pregnancies is not even a minute fraction of the amount of abortions occuring every year.

Per the info on the other page about if EVERY woman who got pregnant due to sexual assault had an abortion then ~3% of abortions would fall into this category. Just the facts..

 

[SoCuteMD]

How often does the pill + condoms fail? How many women actually become pregant as a result of rape? My guess is that these numbers are substantially lower than the number of fetuses aborted each year.

Yes, some women will still get pregnant. For those of us who are morally opposed to abortion, however, this is an acceptable alternative.

As I understand it: 1 in 100 women using the Pill properly in any given year will become pregnant within that year. I also understand that the "failure" rate for condoms is right about the same number if they are used perfectly (and as many of you probably know, it can be frustrating and difficult to use them perfectly). Oh yes, I forgot. 1 in 1000 women who combines the two will become pregnant in any given year (99.9%).

Of course, there are latex allergies, women with HTN who can't be on the pill, woman who can't take the pill because it makes them PMSy/gain weight/any number of side effects that come from pumping extra hormones into your body.

Oh, and don't forget that the Pill has significantly reduced efficacy in people who are 20% or more over their ideal body weight (and obesity/overweight is 60% of our population now)

And yes, I did pull the rape argument out, but only accompanied by other valid arguments.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Interesting indeed... Its funny, cause I believe that in order to be pro-life, you should be consistent in believing so. Therefore, I am against abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia. I feel that I personally would be a hypocrite to argue against abortion but support the death penalty.

Hey EF, I can't wait to see the updated thread count after today!!

CS

CS I did post an update.. we caught up like 120 posts.. this is probably the single busiest thread I have EVER seen in 1 day in the EM forum.. 2000 will fall tomorrow..

CS Im pro choice so I think they should all be let go..I guess it is just a different way of looking at things.

 

[CS_22]

12R34Y,

Interesting.. of course if they really wanted to pass something they could just throw in a constitutional amendment if they really wanted it passed. Truth is if enough people want something.. then they can have it..Per the Harris poll about 65% of people dont want Roe V Wade overturned.. Also I realize if it WERE overturned the percentage would drop (since people dont want change) but IMO it would still be over 50%. Probably my guess 57% or so.. I think the reality is that the pro-choice people would have a fit.. Also since over 50% of college students are now women (meaning they will make more $$ and therefore have more power) I dont see something that I would assume a larger percentage of women than men support being tossed. IMO it is wishful thinking this would change. My wife who is Pro-Life has even said that she thinks abortion is wrong and morally reprehensible but she doesnt think that she should impose HER moral values on others..

But keep in mind with Alito and Roberts the RvW vote probably just went from 6-3 to 5-4 with Alito being the changed vote. If Souter does retire, and Bush puts another Justice on that's pro-life, I think it would be highly likely that there would be AT LEAST restrictions on abortion (especially partial birth -- which should be restricted no matter what way you look at it (opinion of course)). It would take a constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court decision, because a normal legislative bill turned law can again be overturned by the SC. The amendment would be the only thing to hold a SC from overturning RvW. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that take 60% of Congress and like 2/3 of the states to ratify an amendment? I don't think something as polar as abortion could pull that off.

CS

 

[EctopicFetus]

As I understand it: 1 in 100 women using the Pill properly in any given year will become pregnant within that year. I also understand that the "failure" rate for condoms is right about the same number if they are used perfectly (and as many of you probably know, it can be frustrating and difficult to use them perfectly). Oh yes, I forgot. 1 in 1000 women who combines the two will become pregnant in any given year (99.9%).

Of course, there are latex allergies, women with HTN who can't be on the pill, woman who can't take the pill because it makes them PMSy/gain weight/any number of side effects that come from pumping extra hormones into your body.

Oh, and don't forget that the Pill has significantly reduced efficacy in people who are 20% or more over their ideal body weight (and obesity/overweight is 60% of our population now)

And yes, I did pull the rape argument out, but only accompanied by other valid arguments.

I guess I just dont agree with anyone on here

IMO the 1% pill thing is kinda out of whack from talking to OBs they say that in practice it is WAY less. Of course 1% for condoms should be higher, because probably condoms are used properly 10% of the time.. Think of all the drunken sex and *****s who dont know how to use them. Anyhow if you took 1% for condoms and 1% for pills states it would happen 0.01% or 1 in 10K.

I agree about women having problems from SEs from the pill..Nuff said on that..

 

[CS_22]

As I understand it: 1 in 100 women using the Pill properly in any given year will become pregnant within that year. I also understand that the "failure" rate for condoms is right about the same number if they are used perfectly (and as many of you probably know, it can be frustrating and difficult to use them perfectly). Oh yes, I forgot. 1 in 1000 women who combines the two will become pregnant in any given year (99.9%).

Of course, there are latex allergies, women with HTN who can't be on the pill, woman who can't take the pill because it makes them PMSy/gain weight/any number of side effects that come from pumping extra hormones into your body.

Oh, and don't forget that the Pill has significantly reduced efficacy in people who are 20% or more over their ideal body weight (and obesity/overweight is 60% of our population now)

And yes, I did pull the rape argument out, but only accompanied by other valid arguments.

With all due respect socute, is it fair to use abortion as a form of "emergency birth control?"

Just curious on your thoughts...

 

[CS_22]

CS I did post an update.. we caught up like 120 posts.. this is probably the single busiest thread I have EVER seen in 1 day in the EM forum.. 2000 will fall tomorrow..

CS Im pro choice so I think they should all be let go..I guess it is just a different way of looking at things.

Yeah, a different way... but I can't say that I'm right. Hopefully just close.

Hey, I'm out for the night. 120 a day isn't bad. Bet it picks up tomorrow.

CS

 

[EctopicFetus]

CS you are right it would take 2/3 of a vote. I think it would and could happen.. That of course is just my opinion. This is such an important issue for some people that if it changed and their congressmen and women didnt act how they deemed as appropriate then they would get booted until it happened. Thats just my opinion. I mean right now 65% think Ab should be legal (inferred from the number).. I just dont see that changing too much.. and if 60% of the population wants it they will get it IMO.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Yeah, a different way... but I can't say that I'm right. Hopefully just close.

Hey, I'm out for the night. 120 a day isn't bad. Bet it picks up tomorrow.

CS

Good night.. I def cant say I am right (as in a fact) it is just my opinion on these issues.. it is my gut feeling if you will. Fatty McFattypants..

 

[SoCuteMD]

With all due respect socute, is it fair to use abortion as a form of "emergency birth control?"

Just curious on your thoughts...

I wasn't calling it "emergency birth control." I hope and pray that women empower themselves in preventing unwanted pregnancies/STDs. But, I also have done a lot with respect to learning about the barriers to effective contraceptive use. And I think I did a good job of shedding some light on those (probably a very good job, since you didn't have a response).

If you are a woman and hypertensive and can't be on the Pill, you have a 1 in 100 chance of becoming pregnant over the course of a year (assuming you are sexually active) because you can't use both the Pill and condoms. Is it realistic to expect that this woman will only have sex when she wants to become pregnant? Is it realistic to expect her partner to agree to that (well, yes) but is it realistic that her partner would agree to that? Ummm...no.

I want abortion to be a last resort for every woman. I want every woman to go into a sexual encounter with a condom in her purse (to presumably be removed and used!), and knowing that even if the condom breaks, her doctor will prescribe Plan B and her pharmacist will fill the prescription. I want her to know where to go, who to call, and how to effectively use contraception. Unfortunately, with this administrations' championship of "abstinence only" education, teens just don't know this stuff. And they need to. They need to know that the safest sex is NO SEX. But they also need to know how to have safer sex.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Socute.. Now it will get interesting.. I agree with everything you said BTW.

But much like I think Bush and conservatives have their head in the sand on the abstinence issue Dems and the left have their heads in the sand on how Abortions are used in practice. The woman I had with 10 Abs should have had her uterus closed permanently, hysterectomy or TUBAL (for corpsman, since it is his love name for me) ligation at the min. Ridiculous..

 

[corpsmanUP]

How often does the pill + condoms fail? How many women actually become pregant as a result of rape? My guess is that these numbers are substantially lower than the number of fetuses aborted each year.

Yes, some women will still get pregnant. For those of us who are morally opposed to abortion, however, this is an acceptable alternative.

The best alternative I can come up with if you don't find it morally acceptable is to NOT GET AN ABORTION.

Thats my problem with the right; they just enter into your "buniss" when its convenient for them. Was the Terry Shivo ordeal a complete embarrasment and mockery of our conservatives? They'll carry guns, and create laws to suit their tax bracket, as well as carry the banner that the feds should let states do whatever they want....when its convenient. But when Shivo ( or is it Shaivo? ) smiled due to a gas pocket in her transverse colon, the whole "government hands off" argument melted like cheap Mexican chocolate!! That poor girl was found to have zero functional cortical neuronal bodies remaining on autopsy, but they sure made a point heh?

Until you have seen rounds come and go downrange, its a little tough to truly appreciate the the fact that as Americans, we pretty much have more freedom than any other people in the world. I don't always agree with the positions of either party, but what I always agree with is that I would not expect laws to be based simply on people's individual morals.

Do I like abortion....NO
Would I perform one.....No
Would I pay for my daughter to get one.....maybe
Would I want women to have this right taken away because of someone else's morals.....No
Do I carry a handgun.....sometimes
Do I hunt.....NO
Do I mind people hunting....NO
Am I in favor of affirmative action.......YES....if implemented correctly
Do I think my taxes are too high.......YES
Do I think drugs should be legalized......YES
Do I think the drinking age should be 18........NO
Do I think that we should have a one term president....YES
Do I think all lobbyists should be bused out of DC......yes
Do I think soft money is criminal in politics....YES
Do I think we should have a strong military....YES
Do I think we should execute convicted murderers........YES
Do I believe euthanasia is okay........NO
Would I participate in administering it....NO
Am I a fan of hospice induced death under the influence of SC Morphine...YES
Do I think we should ban euthanasia..........NO
Am I a christian.....YES
Do I knock on people's doors telling them about him....... NO
Do I think people should be banned from knocking on doors talking about churches that don't have windows?...........NO
Do I think religion and politics should be separate......YES
Do I think kids should have the right to pray in school..........yes
Should we change the pledge to take out the word God.......NO (Like the abortion issue, don't say that part of the pledge if it bothers you that much!)

What political party do you think would invite me over for dinner.......NONE

Like Ectopic, I think the average American will eventually become so repulsed with the 2 party system that eventually there will be a dominating central moderate party.

And did I mention.....Don't get an abortion if you don't want one.

 

[SoCuteMD]

Thats my problem with the right; they just enter into your "buniss" when its convenient for them. Was the Terry Shivo ordeal a complete embarrasment and mockery of our conservatives? They'll carry guns, and create laws to suit their tax bracket, as well as carry the banner that the feds should let states do whatever they want....when its convenient. But when Shivo ( or is it Shaivo? ) smiled due to a gas pocket in her transverse colon, the whole "government hands off" argument melted like cheap Mexican chocolate!! That poor girl was found to have zero functional cortical neuronal bodies remaining on autopsy, but they sure made a point heh?
.

The sad irony of it all is that during his tenure as governor of Texas, Bush signed a bill to overrule parents who wanted to keep their children alive despite the fact that it had been deemed medically futile. And then Schiavo came along and he was all behind keeping her alive.

Sadly, I believe that the first child to fall victim to his Texas law died during the Terry Schiavo battle.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Would I want women to have this right taken away because of someone else's morals.....No

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the abortion issue. Other laws are for the good of society and yes I can hear the the fetus is a person and might become [insert great person here]. Blah.. this harms no one IMO the fetus IMO is not a person.. just a clump of semi-organized cells (I know no one will like that). The fetus is in essence a parasite (I love kids BTW). Ill end it there.. stir, stir, stir.....

 

[RonaldColeman]

I wasn't calling it "emergency birth control." I hope and pray that women empower themselves in preventing unwanted pregnancies/STDs. But, I also have done a lot with respect to learning about the barriers to effective contraceptive use. And I think I did a good job of shedding some light on those (probably a very good job, since you didn't have a response).

If you are a woman and hypertensive and can't be on the Pill, you have a 1 in 100 chance of becoming pregnant over the course of a year (assuming you are sexually active) because you can't use both the Pill and condoms. Is it realistic to expect that this woman will only have sex when she wants to become pregnant? Is it realistic to expect her partner to agree to that (well, yes) but is it realistic that her partner would agree to that? Ummm...no.

I want abortion to be a last resort for every woman. I want every woman to go into a sexual encounter with a condom in her purse (to presumably be removed and used!), and knowing that even if the condom breaks, her doctor will prescribe Plan B and her pharmacist will fill the prescription. I want her to know where to go, who to call, and how to effectively use contraception. Unfortunately, with this administrations' championship of "abstinence only" education, teens just don't know this stuff. And they need to. They need to know that the safest sex is NO SEX. But they also need to know how to have safer sex.

Blueprints OB/GYN:
actual failure rate of combination pills: 3.0
actual failure rate of depo-provera: .3
actual failure rate of male condoms: 12.0
actual failure rate of female condom: 21.0

use some combination of these, and I'd say your odds of getting pregnant are much less than 1:1000.

To the women with hypertension who can "only" use a male condom, add female condom or cervical cap or spermicide or ejaculatory withdrawal or ovulation method or calendar or symptothermal or any combination that you desire. Combining these modalities will certainly decreases your odds of getting pregnant far below 1:100.

 

[SoCuteMD]

Blueprints OB/GYN:
actual failure rate of combination pills: 3.0
actual failure rate of depo-provera: .3
actual failure rate of male condoms: 12.0
actual failure rate of female condom: 21.0

use some combination of these, and I'd say your odds of getting pregnant are much less than 1:1000.

To the women with hypertension who can "only" use a male condom, add female condom or cervical cap or spermicide or ejaculatory withdrawal or ovulation method or calendar or symptothermal or any combination that you desire. Combining these modalities will certainly decreases your odds of getting pregnant far below 1:100.

Well what failure rate do you think is acceptable? At what point do we say, "Sorry, your unintended pregnancy is such a statistical anomaly that we don't provide for it and you are just going to have to carry this child for 9 months. But you can give it away at the end, provided it is born without birth defects (because if it is born with birth defects, the adoptive parents will probably just disappear). Of course, you didn't know you were going to be pregnant, so there is a much higher likelihood since you weren't taking folic acid, and you probably were drinking alchohol and possibly using drugs that could affect the development (prescribed or not). And, of course, if you don't want to give the baby away we will happily stick you in a dangerous housing project and provide you with food stamps."

Actually, combining the pill and the male condom with your stats I get a failure rate of 36/10000 or 3.6 in 1000 - higher than the 1/1000 I cited, and frankly still far too high for comfort.

Don't even cite depo as a valid option. Of the women I've talked to who have used it (~10) only ONE has gotten a repeat dose. All the rest said it was just too miserable to try again.

As far as using ejaculatory withdrawal, ovulation, calendar, symptothermal - I am all for personal responsibility, but some of those require a LOT of work. I believe one of the methods, maybe symptothermal requires you to start your morning calmly by spending 15 mins in bed before you take your basal body temperature to establish what your fertility is that day. Do you have time to do that? I can tell you that I, as a single woman without kids, don't even have time to do that!!!

Have you used or even seen a female condom? I haven't used one, but I've seen one and how it's supposed to be used. Let's just say that it's not really going to add anything to the romantic nature of making love. It's basically like putting Saran Wrap between your legs.

Doctors need to be aware of what the birth control methods they are citing entail. From my experience, many are not. This thread is making that all the more clear.

 

[debtridden]

Hamas might win...it's around 3:30pm over there, I think, so the official results should be in in a few hours.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Yeah Hamas sounds like they are rolling. Its a shame cause the US wanted an election for the palestinians and now they got it with unintended results. Oh well, lets see what happens from here. You better believe the US and Israel wont stand for terrorist BS. Should be interesting. I bet oil futures go up today!

 

[EctopicFetus]

From the Ortho-Tri-Cyclen Insert

oral contraceptives have a failure rate of less than 1% per year when used without missing any pills. The typical failure rate of large numbers of pill users is 5% per year when women who miss pills are included

A website that looks dinky but the stats are very similar to what has been stated on here.

http://www.mjbovo.com/Contracept/FailRates.htm

Oh and me and my wife have used the female condom (experimented with it) pre marriage and I can 2nd socute's feelings on Saran Wrap.. YUCK! Neither of us liked it.

 

[penguins]

First of all....this will certainly cause us to catapult ahead of the path guys.

Adding fuel to the fire. Besides being a "right winger" and pro-LIFE to the point that it hurts. I'm pumped beyond all get out about the 2 recent appointments to the supreme court by bush (roberts and soon-to-be Alito).

roberts and alito are both pro-life (Alito in a huge way). They're predicting the retirement of the other really really old justice (suter?) who's like 85 to retire during Bush's next 3 years in office.

That will give us THREE lifetime appointments to the most powerful court in the land and of course all conservative.

My point is that it is just a matter of time before Roe v Wade is overturned (finally). The country is split about 50/50 (i think it is like 60/40 choice:life), but it won't matter if the guys on the bench are all right wingers.

gotta love lifetime appointments. Bush has also loaded up the appelate and circuit courts so far (also lifetime).

I think we've got the lefties runnin' scared.

Man this is gonna be a good thread.

I LOVE stirring the pot!

later

Ditto, we don't have anything fun like this on the neuro forum! Bush has been my hero since I was 12. He's sexy!

 

[CS_22]

I wasn't calling it "emergency birth control." I hope and pray that women empower themselves in preventing unwanted pregnancies/STDs. But, I also have done a lot with respect to learning about the barriers to effective contraceptive use. And I think I did a good job of shedding some light on those (probably a very good job, since you didn't have a response).

If you are a woman and hypertensive and can't be on the Pill, you have a 1 in 100 chance of becoming pregnant over the course of a year (assuming you are sexually active) because you can't use both the Pill and condoms. Is it realistic to expect that this woman will only have sex when she wants to become pregnant? Is it realistic to expect her partner to agree to that (well, yes) but is it realistic that her partner would agree to that? Ummm...no.

I want abortion to be a last resort for every woman. I want every woman to go into a sexual encounter with a condom in her purse (to presumably be removed and used!), and knowing that even if the condom breaks, her doctor will prescribe Plan B and her pharmacist will fill the prescription. I want her to know where to go, who to call, and how to effectively use contraception. Unfortunately, with this administrations' championship of "abstinence only" education, teens just don't know this stuff. And they need to. They need to know that the safest sex is NO SEX. But they also need to know how to have safer sex.

Seriously socute, thank you for the frank discussion regarding this topic, and the fact that we can have it without either side getting heated.

I think you did a very good job explaining the failures of normal contraception. But, I think this is where the personal accountability argument comes in... If an individual is going to have sex, even protected, should the accept the responsibility that comes with it? I think so. But again, just opinion.

But what I would be interested to know, is really how many abortions occur due to contraception failure. I mean, let's say some an educated individual knowing all the risks, tries to not get pregnant and still does -- then has an abortion -- do I agree with it? No. But can I accept that over an individual who doesn't even try to protect herself. I think so.

Here's where I'm going with all of this. Again, I don't think America is ready for RvW to be overturned. I don't want my daughter to not hold the same values as me and need to get a back alley abortion. BUT, truthfully, if you can educate America about birth control and pregnancy risks. Work towards a rather Utopian 100% rate of individuals using contraception when they don't want to get pregnant, then maybe the number goes from a million a year to 100,000 or even less maybe. Its easy for you to make an argument that failed contraception should be allowed to have an abortion, but I can just as quickly come back and argue that how many people really use contraception right or at all?

I do think, as well, that partial birth abortions should be banned. I think that if you're going to have a Lacy Peterson Law, then you should be consistent, but again I've been on that rant a long time...

Nice discussion.

 

[CS_22]

Socute.. Now it will get interesting.. I agree with everything you said BTW.

But much like I think Bush and conservatives have their head in the sand on the abstinence issue Dems and the left have their heads in the sand on how Abortions are used in practice. The woman I had with 10 Abs should have had her uterus closed permanently, hysterectomy or TUBAL (for corpsman, since it is his love name for me) ligation at the min. Ridiculous..

I agree EF, I truly think both parties are so jaded towards one side that they don't realize the answer is somewhere in the middle.

 

[CS_22]

Like Ectopic, I think the average American will eventually become so repulsed with the 2 party system that eventually there will be a dominating central moderate party.

I completely agree with this statement. Its just going to take someone big enough to be able to take on the two party establishment. There is a lot of money and power behind the two party system. The other problem is that most national congressman "owe" their election to the party that supported them, so they aren't likely to switch.

 

[CS_22]

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the abortion issue. Other laws are for the good of society and yes I can hear the the fetus is a person and might become [insert great person here]. Blah.. this harms no one IMO the fetus IMO is not a person.. just a clump of semi-organized cells (I know no one will like that). The fetus is in essence a parasite (I love kids BTW). Ill end it there.. stir, stir, stir.....

Wow. LOL. Good try.

Question. When does the fetus become a baby? I'm not Catholic, but I know their stance is at contraception, because if you don't take that stance, its impossible to pick a point thereafter (I went to a Catholic college and took a theology class). But at what point does it for you EF (or anyone else)?

 

[CS_22]

Yeah Hamas sounds like they are rolling. Its a shame cause the US wanted an election for the palestinians and now they got it with unintended results. Oh well, lets see what happens from here. You better believe the US and Israel wont stand for terrorist BS. Should be interesting. I bet oil futures go up today!

Another example of blowback -- Unintended consequences from America's imperialistic view of the world, and its failed foreign policy. Yeah Bush!

 

[EctopicFetus]

Another example of blowback -- Unintended consequences from America's imperialistic view of the world, and its failed foreign policy. Yeah Bush!

Lets be honest this was also the policy of GW the 1st and Clinton. The theory behind it was that Hamas wasnt desired by the palestinians well i guess they showed all the US leaders that isnt true.

What is VERY interesting is that the US has given the palestinian authority about $100 mil per yr, now if they decide to give it to the palestinian leadership then they themselves would be funding a US described terrorist organization... Interesting.

 

[CS_22]

Lets be honest this was also the policy of GW the 1st and Clinton. The theory behind it was that Hamas wasnt desired by the palestinians well i guess they showed all the US leaders that isnt true.

What is VERY interesting is that the US has given the palestinian authority about $100 mil per yr, now if they decide to give it to the palestinian leadership then they themselves would be funding a US described terrorist organization... Interesting.

No, I agree all three have been pushing for mideast elections. I'm just saying our relations with arab countries and our subsequent invasion of Iraq probably helped fuel the fire for the Palestinians to elect Hamas. I'm just saying its the US policy in general (and that our opinion that we're better than everyone else) that caused this election to go the way it did. Let's not forget, these are the same people who were cheering in the streets after 9/11. Should we have expected it to go any other way?

 

[EctopicFetus]

Wow. LOL. Good try.

Question. When does the fetus become a baby? I'm not Catholic, but I know their stance is at contraception, because if you don't take that stance, its impossible to pick a point thereafter (I went to a Catholic college and took a theology class). But at what point does it for you EF (or anyone else)?

I think technically the Fetus becomes a baby when it is born.. But I DEF dont think that you should be able to have an abortion until the 3rd trimester or anything. You could say a person could have an AB until the fetus becomes viable outside of the mothers womb which is 22 or 24 weeks now and of course it could change as technology improves and we can help babies breathe. I honestly dont think there is a great point to pick otherwise hence I full understand the conception argument. Now dont mistake what I am saying.. I am not for abortion... I just think women should have a choice. Im pretty happy with the very arbitrary 1st trimester rule we currently have.

An interesting side note to this discussion, there was a case (in Tx I think) where a husband got his wife pregnant and right around there they wanted a divorce. She wanted an AB and he didnt.. She ended up winning which I think is the right outcome (Her right to privacy IMO), but what if a man gets a woman pregnant but doesnt want the kid why should he be on the hook? It is kind of a double standard IMO. This is usually a $$ deal, so if I got a random woman pregnant (if I werent married) after a night out at a bar but I didnt want this kid should this woman and my future child be able to have at my $$$ when that woman could do whatever she wanted with the kid without any of my input? Hmm.. tough question.. Im just throwing it out there.. And I know the personal responsibility argument and believe me I am the biggest proponent of personal responsibility prob on this board.. but seeing how society REALLY is today I was wondering what arguments could be framed from that point of view.

 

[EctopicFetus]

No, I agree all three have been pushing for mideast elections. I'm just saying our relations with arab countries and our subsequent invasion of Iraq probably helped fuel the fire for the Palestinians to elect Hamas. I'm just saying its the US policy in general (and that our opinion that we're better than everyone else) that caused this election to go the way it did. Let's not forget, these are the same people who were cheering in the streets after 9/11. Should we have expected it to go any other way?

Yep cheering in the streets burning our flag.. Ill leave it there.

I dont think we should have expected any different but now we have an even more serious problem.

Clearly, we have a very poor relationship with the arabs, honestly do you think we would give 2 you know whats if there werent oceans of oil under their feet? If they didnt have oil the middle east would be stuck in famine and disease like much of Africa. You do see how much we care about what goes on in Africa dont you guys?

 

[DocCM]

Yep cheering in the streets burning our flag.. Ill leave it there.

I dont think we should have expected any different but now we have an even more serious problem.

Clearly, we have a very poor relationship with the arabs, honestly do you think we would give 2 you know whats if there werent oceans of oil under their feet? If they didnt have oil the middle east would be stuck in famine and disease like much of Africa. You do see how much we care about what goes on in Africa dont you guys?

Frist, yeah- oil plays a major role if deteriming foreign policy-again because our economy depends on it. Second, (and I'm the last one to defend Palestine for anything), but elections are a sign of democracy. The spread of democracy = spread of freedom. People like to call the US's desire for this to happen imperialistic, but it's already been stated on this board that we have the most freedom in the world. Why wouldn't we want this type of freedom for others? Hamas winning the election is scary. Palestine will now be a country who no only supports terrorist but is run by them as well. But this is the desire of the people of Palestine...
CM

 

[CS_22]

I think technically the Fetus becomes a baby when it is born.. But I DEF dont think that you should be able to have an abortion until the 3rd trimester or anything. You could say a person could have an AB until the fetus becomes viable outside of the mothers womb which is 22 or 24 weeks now and of course it could change as technology improves and we can help babies breathe. I honestly dont think there is a great point to pick otherwise hence I full understand the conception argument. Now dont mistake what I am saying.. I am not for abortion... I just think women should have a choice. Im pretty happy with the very arbitrary 1st trimester rule we currently have.

An interesting side note to this discussion, there was a case (in Tx I think) where a husband got his wife pregnant and right around there they wanted a divorce. She wanted an AB and he didnt.. She ended up winning which I think is the right outcome (Her right to privacy IMO), but what if a man gets a woman pregnant but doesnt want the kid why should he be on the hook? It is kind of a double standard IMO. This is usually a $$ deal, so if I got a random woman pregnant (if I werent married) after a night out at a bar but I didnt want this kid should this woman and my future child be able to have at my $$$ when that woman could do whatever she wanted with the kid without any of my input? Hmm.. tough question.. Im just throwing it out there.. And I know the personal responsibility argument and believe me I am the biggest proponent of personal responsibility prob on this board.. but seeing how society REALLY is today I was wondering what arguments could be framed from that point of view.

But the problem is there really isn't a first trimester rule... where I'm at, we got one of the five doctors that does late term abortions.

And, yeah, I think that's a very logical argument. I almost wonder, though, if the husband should have had some sort of right to the child. That's a very, very tough ethical question.

 

[CS_22]

Frist, yeah- oil plays a major role if deteriming foreign policy-again because our economy depends on it. Second, (and I'm the last one to defend Palestine for anything), but elections are a sign of democracy. The spread of democracy = spread of freedom. People like to call the US's desire for this to happen imperialistic, but it's already been stated on this board that we have the most freedom in the world. Why wouldn't we want this type of freedom for others? Hamas winning the election is scary. Palestine will now be a country who no only supports terrorist but is run by them as well. But this is the desire of the people of Palestine...
CM

I agree. And am all for the Palestines having the right to choose. Like you said, why wouldn't we want this for everyone.


I'm just saying our foreign policy has led to the type of leadership that they have chosen. They know our interest is oil, and Israel (lots of lobbying there...), and we don't really care about them as a society. So why not elect people who hate us as much as we do.

 

[DocCM]

I agree. And am all for the Palestines having the right to choose. Like you said, why wouldn't we want this for everyone.


I'm just saying our foreign policy has led to the type of leadership that they have chosen. They know our interest is oil, and Israel (lots of lobbying there...), and we don't really care about them as a society. So why not elect people who hate us as much as we do.

I really don't understand why they would care or not that we depend on their oil- they can benefit greatly from the partnership (look at UAE, Barhain(sp), Quatar). I think that our alliance with Israel is the main reason for the contention. That's not going to change for one reason or another.
For a long time, Yassar Arafat was the popular leader of the people Palestine, even though he was not elected. He did advocate terrorism against Israel in the 80's, them under pressure from the US, renounced it in order to meet with Clinton. His denouncing proved hollow and he was once again banished from the white house under Bush. My point is that Palestine has long been 'ruled' by terrorists, nnow that it's official, countries will have to decide for themselves how much of a relationship they want with a terrorist state.
CM

 

[EctopicFetus]

I agree. And am all for the Palestines having the right to choose. Like you said, why wouldn't we want this for everyone.


I'm just saying our foreign policy has led to the type of leadership that they have chosen. They know our interest is oil, and Israel (lots of lobbying there...), and we don't really care about them as a society. So why not elect people who hate us as much as we do.

hey IIRC Hugo Chavez was also elected in Venezuela we dont like him much either , of course on Fox news they refer to him as a "dictator" but I believe he was voted in.

I agree with CS here on this point. Their hatred of us comes from the fact that we support Israel (for a lot of reasons, including the fact that they are the ONLY Democracy in the Middle east). Is there a reason though that we should "care about them as a society"? I just wonder what the long term effect of this will be. Should be interesting esp because I cant see the US giving $100 Mil to a US defined Terrorist organization.

We can debate the Israel vs Palestine thing. I for one am VERY pro-israel..

 

[EctopicFetus]

I really don't understand why they would care or not that we depend on their oil- they can benefit greatly from the partnership (look at UAE, Barhain(sp), Quatar). I think that our alliance with Israel is the main reason for the contention. That's not going to change for one reason or another.
For a long time, Yassar Arafat was the popular leader of the people Palestine, even though he was not elected. He did advocate terrorism against Israel in the 80's, them under pressure from the US, renounced it in order to meet with Clinton. His denouncing proved hollow and he was once again banished from the white house under Bush. My point is that Palestine has long been 'ruled' by terrorists, nnow that it's official, countries will have to decide for themselves how much of a relationship they want with a terrorist state.
CM

IMO they care that we depend on their oil because if we didnt then we would prob have no relations with them. At the same time if we stopped depending on their Oil we would bottom out the price of oil. I know china uses a lot of Oil but America is the #1 consumer of Oil in the world.

 

[DocCM]

IMO they care that we depend on their oil because if we didnt then we would prob have no relations with them. At the same time if we stopped depending on their Oil we would bottom out the price of oil. I know china uses a lot of Oil but America is the #1 consumer of Oil in the world.

I agree, but I don't think oour dependence our their oil is why they hate the west. As far as not having relations with them, I believe we would be forced to have relations no matter what simply becase of out alliance with Israel.
CM

 

[EctopicFetus]

NOAA Info

The United States uses about 700 million gallons of oil every day.

The world uses nearly 3 billion gallons each day.

So we are using almost 25% of the worlds Oil. Just something to think about.

Where we get our Oil From

According to the above URL we import about 10 Million barrels of Oil per day and about half are from the middle east.

NOTE: The top stat is in Gallons and the one in the bottom is in Barrels there are 42 Gallons in a barrel.

So about 14% of the oil we use here in the US is from the middle east aka OPEC.

 

[EctopicFetus]

I agree, but I don't think oour dependence our their oil is why they hate the west. As far as not having relations with them, I believe we would be forced to have relations no matter what simply becase of out alliance with Israel.
CM

I dont think Im being clear. Of course they dont hate us they love us because without our $$ and dependence on them their countries would look like sub saharan africa. Yes a large part of it is our alliance with Israel, but dont overlook the fact that we have military bases in their lands. They dont like this one bit and IMO this is the #1 reason they hate us.

Osama himself made alluded to the fact that he didnt like us having military bases in Saudi Arabia (his homeland).

 

[DocCM]

I dont think Im being clear. Of course they dont hate us they love us because without our $$ and dependence on them their countries would look like sub saharan africa. Yes a large part of it is our alliance with Israel, but dont overlook the fact that we have military bases in their lands. They dont like this one bit and IMO this is the #1 reason they hate us.

Osama himself made alluded to the fact that he didnt like us having military bases in Saudi Arabia (his homeland).

Great point. This definitely contributes to the contention. But Palestine, Iran, and Iraq have all at one time said their goal is the destrucion of Israel. The US being such close friends with them puts us on the same side.
CM

 

[EctopicFetus]

Great point. This definitely contributes to the contention. But Palestine, Iran, and Iraq have all at one time said their goal is the destrucion of Israel. The US being such close friends with them puts us on the same side.
CM

Agreed!! BTW there is no such thing anymore as "Palestine" not on any map I have seen

 

[EctopicFetus]

Great point. This definitely contributes to the contention. But Palestine, Iran, and Iraq have all at one time said their goal is the destrucion of Israel. The US being such close friends with them puts us on the same side.
CM

Agreed!! BTW there is no such thing anymore as "Palestine" not on any map I have seen

 

[EctopicFetus]

Great point. This definitely contributes to the contention. But Palestine, Iran, and Iraq have all at one time said their goal is the destrucion of Israel. The US being such close friends with them puts us on the same side.
CM

Agreed!! BTW there is no such thing anymore as "Palestine" not on any map I have seen

 

[DocCM]

Agreed!! BTW there is no such thing anymore as "Palestine" not on any map I have seen

You're right, guess I should say Palestinians...

 

[Hawkeye Kid]

Wow. LOL. Good try.

Question. When does the fetus become a baby? I'm not Catholic, but I know their stance is at contraception, because if you don't take that stance, its impossible to pick a point thereafter (I went to a Catholic college and took a theology class). But at what point does it for you EF (or anyone else)?

Fetus becomes a baby at contraception? Don't let the pope read this! Sorry, dude. I know EXACTLY what you mean, but I coudln't resist.

BTW, I never thought I'd see the female condom discussed at such (or any) length in the EM forum. Y'all really wanna catch those Path folks, don't ya?

 

[EctopicFetus]

Im just having a little fun with you. I agree though.. Iran and Iraq and most of the middle east would like to wipe that tiny little country off the map. The problem they have is that the US supports israel (for many reasons) and that would most def lead to a world war. It is amazing how much news comes out of such a small peice of land.

 

[SoCuteMD]

Seriously socute, thank you for the frank discussion regarding this topic, and the fact that we can have it without either side getting heated.

I think you did a very good job explaining the failures of normal contraception. But, I think this is where the personal accountability argument comes in... If an individual is going to have sex, even protected, should the accept the responsibility that comes with it? I think so. But again, just opinion.

But what I would be interested to know, is really how many abortions occur due to contraception failure. I mean, let's say some an educated individual knowing all the risks, tries to not get pregnant and still does -- then has an abortion -- do I agree with it? No. But can I accept that over an individual who doesn't even try to protect herself. I think so.

Here's where I'm going with all of this. Again, I don't think America is ready for RvW to be overturned. I don't want my daughter to not hold the same values as me and need to get a back alley abortion. BUT, truthfully, if you can educate America about birth control and pregnancy risks. Work towards a rather Utopian 100% rate of individuals using contraception when they don't want to get pregnant, then maybe the number goes from a million a year to 100,000 or even less maybe. Its easy for you to make an argument that failed contraception should be allowed to have an abortion, but I can just as quickly come back and argue that how many people really use contraception right or at all?

I do think, as well, that partial birth abortions should be banned. I think that if you're going to have a Lacy Peterson Law, then you should be consistent, but again I've been on that rant a long time...

Nice discussion.

Yes, I understand the need for personal responsibility. I know that I, as a (currently abstinent) first year medical student living in a tiny apartment and barely getting by on my student loan money and barely finding the time to take care of myself, would be in quite a pickle if I got pregnant. And the guy would have no worries. Yes, I suppose I could go after him for child support, but I have friends who get child support from their "baby daddies" and it amounts to something like $200/month when the guy is pulling in 50K a year. $200 a month would not help me raise a child.

Would I have an abortion? Probably not. I would take time off from school to save some money and enlist the help of my family (I am lucky enough to have a mom who doesn't work, and would pitch in to help) and make it somehow and be able to give that child a very nice life - financially, educationally, and emotionally. But what percent of the population am I? What percent of the population has less support than I do? I would guess that a very high percentage do.

I realize that the G15P5 patients you see are probably NOT there due to contraceptive failure, but they are there due to lack of contraceptive education. If we can make it so that unintended pregnancy is a statistical anomaly, then frankly I think that the right wing will be appeased enough to just be quiet about it for the most part if there are only 1000 abortions a year as opposed to close to 1,000,000 (data from CDC, 1999, at which point there had been a significant downward trend for 4 years. Suspect it has increased since the institution of new sex ed policies since 2000).

I also think I raise a valid point about the fact that unplanned babies are likely to encounter more problems due to maternal behavior. Their moms are way more likely to be using drugs, not be taking folic acid (my family has a history of neural tube defects, so this always sticks in my mind) and to be drinking alcohol during pregnancy. What happens when nobody wants those kids? Where do they go and what kind of lives are they going to have?