58 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

This isn't about whether the procedure is necessary, or even useful. It's about legislating a procedure to be mandatory irrespective of the views of the medical practitioner involved.

And that, I think we can all agree, is wrong.

[Lychee]

This thread is full of horrors. I had no idea that fetuses could hide in my fallopian tubes. Jesus Christ.

[Turnip]

Not all pregnancies occur in the uterus - some can happen in the fallopian tubes, the ovaries
>fallopian tubes, the ovaries

Aaaaahhhhh this is making my down there's hurt just thinking about it
What happens if pregnancy happens in one of those places? I remember my old health teacher mentioning it, but not really going into detail.... Does the doctor move/abort it or something?

[Lychee]

Aaaaahhhhh this is making my down there's hurt just thinking about it
What happens if pregnancy happens in one of those places? I remember my old health teacher mentioning it, but not really going into detail.... Does the doctor move/abort it or something?

I know what you mean! Having a fetus grow in your ovaries can't be good. Would it make them split as it grew?!

[Waser Lave]

I know what you mean! Having a fetus grow in your ovaries can't be good. Would it make them split as it grew?!

Presumably it wouldn't be a viable pregnancy and so wouldn't be able to develop past maybe a few weeks resulting in a miscarriage in most cases.

[Trichomes]

An ectopic pregnancy, or eccysis, is a complication of pregnancy in which the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity.^[1] With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable. Furthermore, they are dangerous for the parent, since internal haemorrhage is a life threatening complication. Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-called tubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy is a potential medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to death.In a normal pregnancy, the fertilized egg enters the uterus and settles into the uterine lining where it has plenty of room to divide and grow. About 1% of pregnancies are in an ectopic location with implantation not occurring inside of the womb, and of these 98% occur in the Fallopian tubes.

Detection of ectopic pregnancy in early gestation has been achieved mainly due to enhanced diagnostic capability. Despite all these notable successes in diagnostics and detection techniques ectopic pregnancy remains a source of serious maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide, especially in countries with poor prenatal care.^[2]

In a typical ectopic pregnancy, the embryo adheres to the lining of the fallopian tube and burrows into the tubal lining. Most commonly this invades vessels and will cause bleeding. This intratubal bleeding hematosalpinx expels the implantation out of the tubal end as a tubal abortion. Tubal abortion is a common type of miscarriage. There is no inflammation of the tube in ectopic pregnancy. The pain is caused by prostaglandins released at the implantation site, and by free blood in the peritoneal cavity, which is a local irritant. Sometimes the bleeding might be heavy enough to threaten the health or life of the woman. Usually this degree of bleeding is due to delay in diagnosis, but sometimes, especially if the implantation is in the proximal tube (just before it enters the uterus), it may invade into the nearby Sampson artery, causing heavy bleeding earlier than usual.

If left untreated, about half of ectopic pregnancies will resolve without treatment. These are the tubal abortions. The advent of methotrexate treatment for ectopic pregnancy has reduced the need for surgery; however, surgical intervention is still required in cases where the Fallopian tube has ruptured or is in danger of doing so. This intervention may be laparoscopic or through a larger incision, known as a laparotomy.

Edited by Trichomes, 18 February 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[Noitidart]

Very disappointed to see all the horniness on codex has faded away. If I was chick I would be for getting as much as possible with respect to sticking stuff up there and getting it wiggled around.

[Sweeney]

Very disappointed to see all the horniness on codex has faded away. If I was chick I would be for getting as much as possible with respect to sticking stuff up there and getting it wiggled around.

Oh, Noit. Will you ever develop an adult attitude to female reproductive organs?

[Noitidart]

Oh, Noit. Will you ever develop an adult attitude to female reproductive organs?

I don't think that comment displayed my attitude towards anything. Lighten up bro. I love you man.

[Burgeroth]

I felt the need to respond to this because I had a medical abortion this past July. And most of you don't really know anything about abortions so I thought I'd clear the air (I used to not know either).
Getting ultrasounds before an abortion is necessary. They have to see how far along the fetus is to determine what type of abortion you can have. For instance, I wanted medical (pills) so I could stay at home. This is where an ultrasound is dire. Medical abortions cannot be done later in the pregnancy; it must be done, if I remember correctly within ~6 weeks. If it's even a week older than that, you have to get the suction procedure instead. The only way to find out for sure is with the OBGYN actually looking at the clump of cells (mine was practically invisible) and yes, when the pregnancy is that young the ultrasound must be done by way of shoving a stick thing up your vagina and into the uterus to get the picture.

Oh yea, and of course it's to see if you actually have a baby up in there.

PS I know, this is quite a strange first post

EDIT - wow, how could I forget to mention that I live in Virginia?

Edited by Burgeroth, 18 February 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[NapisaurusRex]

I felt the need to respond to this because I had a medical abortion this past July. And most of you don't really know anything about abortions so I thought I'd clear the air (I used to not know either).
Getting ultrasounds before an abortion is necessary. They have to see how far along the fetus is to determine what type of abortion you can have. For instance, I wanted medical (pills) so I could stay at home. This is where an ultrasound is dire. Medical abortions cannot be done later in the pregnancy; it must be done, if I remember correctly within ~6 weeks. If it's even a week older than that, you have to get the suction procedure instead. The only way to find out for sure is with the OBGYN actually looking at the clump of cells (mine was practically invisible) and yes, when the pregnancy is that young the ultrasound must be done by way of shoving a stick thing up your vagina and into the uterus to get the picture.

Oh yea, and of course it's to see if you actually have a baby up in there.

PS I know, this is quite a strange first post

EDIT - wow, how could I forget to mention that I live in Virginia?

I would consider this to be a choice that you made though. You could have chosen to skip the ultrasound... but you would have a different type of abortion. I see that as different than being forced to have an ultrasound no matter what type of abortion you have.

[Sweeney]

I felt the need to respond to this because I had a medical abortion this past July. And most of you don't really know anything about abortions so I thought I'd clear the air (I used to not know either).
Getting ultrasounds before an abortion is necessary. They have to see how far along the fetus is to determine what type of abortion you can have. For instance, I wanted medical (pills) so I could stay at home. This is where an ultrasound is dire. Medical abortions cannot be done later in the pregnancy; it must be done, if I remember correctly within ~6 weeks. If it's even a week older than that, you have to get the suction procedure instead. The only way to find out for sure is with the OBGYN actually looking at the clump of cells (mine was practically invisible) and yes, when the pregnancy is that young the ultrasound must be done by way of shoving a stick thing up your vagina and into the uterus to get the picture.

Oh yea, and of course it's to see if you actually have a baby up in there.

PS I know, this is quite a strange first post

EDIT - wow, how could I forget to mention that I live in Virginia?

As Napiform said, the fact that it's a medical procedure that is sometimes necessary before an abortion is performed is totally incidental to the fact that people are trying to legislate it to be mandatory.
No one should decide the procedures a patient undergoes except the patient and their doctor.

[Burgeroth]

I guess I should have reworded my post. My inferred point is that getting an ultrasound is normal before an abortion. Now, forcing the patient to LOOK at the picture is out of hand. My doctor asked if I wanted to see and I said sure why not. It was as big as a pin point btw.

[Sweeney]

I guess I should have reworded my post. My inferred point is that getting an ultrasound is normal before an abortion. Now, forcing the patient to LOOK at the picture is out of hand. My doctor asked if I wanted to see and I said sure why not. It was as big as a pin point btw.

But it doesn't matter either way... legislating it is wrong.

[Burgeroth]

I never disagreed with you. I simply wanted to inform people of how things work (at least in VA) because earlier in the thread people were saying how horrible it is to get an ultrasound before and abortion. It's not. However, this bill in its entirety, is horrible.

[Faerhii]

I've had two trans-vaginal ultrasounds in my life, and while I don't think they should be mandatory, I do want to state that they're really not some huge invasion of privacy. As Nymh stated, it isn't anything more invasive then your basic pap smear. They actually go deeper into your body for a pap smear then the ultra sound. And while I've never had a "abortion" when I miscarried a baby at 12 weeks the ultrasound was necessary to determine what way they'd use to get the expired fetus and other tissue out of me safely.

Now, forcing the mother to look at the ultrasound is wrong in my opinion.. She's going through enough.. But, at the same time, it might help the aborting mother realize the consequences of their actions. I happen to know a few women who use abortion as a form of birth control because here in Arkansas you can be visually and emotionally detached from the procedure. I think for habitual abortion users, this might be a good way to wake them up and get them on birth control..

The first trans-vaginal ultrasound I had was at ~6 weeks to confirm the pregnancy and make sure it's developing in a healthy way, and again, the second one was to confirm that it was no longer living, and determine the best way to remove the fetus. The second time, I chose not to look at the ultrasound. While the procedure I had wasn't an abortion, I still would not have wanted to be forced to look at the image..

Edited by Faerhii, 19 February 2012 - 08:12 AM.

[NapisaurusRex]

I happen to know a few women who use abortion as a form of birth control because here in Arkansas you can be visually and emotionally detached from the procedure. I think for habitual abortion users, this might be a good way to wake them up and get them on birth control..

I see nothing wrong with using abortion as a form of birth control. There's no difference between one and thirty in my eyes.

[Bone]

I see nothing wrong with using abortion as a form of birth control. There's no difference between one and thirty in my eyes.

Relying on abortion as birth control is grossly inefficient.

(but that still doesn't justify the legislation)

[luvsmyncis]

I see nothing wrong with using abortion as a form of birth control. There's no difference between one and thirty in my eyes.

Well, it's irresponsible. If you fucked up and got pregnant once, that's one thing. But to continually get knocked up without the desire to have a child- that's pathetic and stupid. Especially since there are so many methods available to everyone to prevent pregnancy. Do whatever you want with your body, but at least be smart about it. Take birth control. Make your man wear a condom. If he refuses, then don't let him put his dick in you. It's really not that hard to do.

Legislation that makes medical procedures MANDATORY are a waste of resources. Imagine if you went to have your teeth cleaned at the dentist and they did an Xray every time because there was a law that says they have to. I mean, maybe your teeth are decaying, but it should be at the discretion of the dental practitioner, not lawmakers. Even if they have women's best interest in mind, abortions performed in clinics have been going just fine without these new rules being put in place. Come on.

[NapisaurusRex]

Relying on abortion as birth control is grossly inefficient.

(but that still doesn't justify the legislation)

I didn't say anything about efficiency. I agree that it is far from efficient. While it's not what I prefer (I enjoy preventative maintenance,) I see nothing wrong with other people doing it if that is their preferred method.

Well, it's irresponsible. If you fucked up and got pregnant once, that's one thing. But to continually get knocked up without the desire to have a child- that's pathetic and stupid. Especially since there are so many methods available to everyone to prevent pregnancy. Do whatever you want with your body, but at least be smart about it. Take birth control. Make your man wear a condom. If he refuses, then don't let him put his dick in you. It's really not that hard to do.

I think that it's more irresponsible to have a kid that has to suffer from the mistakes of the parents.

Legislation that makes medical procedures MANDATORY are a waste of resources. Imagine if you went to have your teeth cleaned at the dentist and they did an Xray every time because there was a law that says they have to. I mean, maybe your teeth are decaying, but it should be at the discretion of the dental practitioner, not lawmakers. Even if they have women's best interest in mind, abortions performed in clinics have been going just fine without these new rules being put in place. Come on.

Could you imagine how expensive it would be to have that done every time?

Edited by Napiform, 19 February 2012 - 07:01 PM.

[MsRose]

I think that it's more irresponsible to have a kid that has to suffer from the mistakes of the parents.

I don't think anyone is arguing someone should be forced to give birth to a child they don't want. But, I think most people (pro choice/life) find abortion as birth control, for lack of a better word, immoral. People who fight for abortion rights don't do it so that people can have sloopy sex and be irresponsible and ultimately, those who use abortion as birth control hurt the pro-choice argument.

[Faerhii]

I don't think anyone is arguing someone should be forced to give birth to a child they don't want. But, I think most people (pro choice/life) find abortion as birth control, for lack of a better word, immoral. People who fight for abortion rights don't do it so that people can have sloopy sex and be irresponsible and ultimately, those who use abortion as birth control hurt the pro-choice argument.

^This.

I can forgive an accident or two, but repetitive use over and over again? It's just wrong. Especially because here in Arkansas, our tax money pays for it for low-income women. I'd rather pay for the bitch to get a depo shot or something.

[Ladida]

Wouldn't going on birth control be cheaper than undergoing multiple abortions?

Unrelated: I went through a number of chest x-rays at the end of October, and they somehow kept getting messed up, I don't know if the tech was a nutjob. Anyway, jump to this month, my workplace demanded that I undergo a medical to ensure I'm capable to work. Granted, I'm perfectly healthy, they still want to send me in for a series of tests. They wanted another chest x-ray. So, even after explaining that I had a number of them a few months ago, and they were fine, I still had to go for another. Which showed everything was STILL fine.

Who cares if breast cancer runs in your family as it does in mine. Who cares if you're perfectly normal and you're only there for a "check up". Who cares about your well being whatsoever. Because of red tape, I was forced to either subject myself to a greater chance of cell mutation, or lose my job.

Forcing people to perform unnecessary medical procedures because of red tape is stupid. Period. The doctor and patient should be allowed to discuss and decide the best option for the patient.

/rant

Edited by Ladida, 19 February 2012 - 07:55 PM.

[Maeghan]

If youre using abortion as birth control,

why dont you just get fixed.

One procedure. Time saved. Everyone wins.

Besides, I really hope youre using condoms anyways. You know. Because of the whole STD thing.

[Nymh]

Wouldn't going on birth control be cheaper than undergoing multiple abortions?

Well, not necessarily~ That depends on a lot of factors like how fertile of a myrtle she is, age, verility of the man/men she is with, etc.

The statistics on how long it takes a woman to get pregnant vary widely (I have read some sources that state 90% get pregnant the first year, while some sources state as low as 70% the first year with 95% getting pregnant by the end of the second year so I am not going to cite a source here).

If we assume an average of one year per "oopsie," that's one abortion per year if someone is using it as her routine method of prophylaxis.

Without insurance (and even on a lot of plans like mine for example) BC pills cost $40-50 per month or $480-600 per year.

Abortions in my area run the range of $450 to $500 - and that's for all services INCLUDING the pre-screening ultrasound, optional counseling and a free pack of BC pills.

I already had this argument prepared because I was going to use it to refudiate the notion of using abortion in the place of other birth control methods with regard to the economics involved. After doing a little math though I came to the conclusion that it was not a sound theory so I scrapped it.

Edited by nymh, 20 February 2012 - 06:35 AM.