|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 14, 2020 16:52:35 GMT -5
Hoops.....I tried to get a tubal ligation at 35. I was not married and knew I never wanted any children. I have known since I was 12, and my wants have never wavered.....not once.
I gave up after the 4th GYN I visited denied me. However, my husband got a vasectomy at 40, no questions asked. He called, made an appointment, was told what he needed to do, and it was a done deal. He showed up, they snipped. There is a HUGE disparity between how doctors handle male and female reproductive rights.
BTW....neither my husband (he wasn’t at the time) nor I had any children. Neither did either of want any. This only goes to show you what the disparity of responses there are out there. Neither of us had any medical need for a sterilization, but DH’s insurance paid for his. Unfortunately, I could never get to that point. .
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 14, 2020 17:07:50 GMT -5
Hoops.....I tried to get a tubal ligation at 35. I was not married and knew I never wanted any children. I have known since I was 12, and my wants have never wavered.....not once. I gave up after the 4th GYN I visited denied me. However, my husband got a vasectomy at 40, no questions asked. He called, made an appointment, was told what he needed to do, and it was a done deal. He showed up, they snipped. There is a HUGE disparity between how doctors handle male and female reproductive rights. BTW....neither my husband (he wasn’t at the time) nor I had any children. Neither did either of want any. This only goes to show you what the disparity of responses there are out there. Neither of us had any medical need for a sterilization, but DH’s insurance paid for his. Unfortunately, I could never get to that point. . We're talking about LAWS here though. I don't doubt it's EASIER to get a vasectomy than a tubal (part of it I'm sure due to the relative ease/safety of the 2 compared to one another). But it's a completely different discussion between "what are doctors comfortable doing" and "what is the law". I'm sure at least PART of the disparity is that a vasectomy is relatively easy to reverse if someone changes their mind (and I kind of don't blame doctors for being more cautious, because changing minds on that kind of thing isn't so rare as to be a non-factor). So the whole argument of "there should be laws governing male reproduction if we're going to have laws governing female reproduction" kind of falls apart immediately if people can't point to any laws actually governing female reproduction (since we're not talking about abortion, which is a joke, because everyone knows that was the point of this legislation to begin with).
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Feb 14, 2020 19:09:07 GMT -5
How will it be policed. Do I have to carry my 'papers'?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 14, 2020 19:12:21 GMT -5
Depends
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,779
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 14, 2020 19:18:55 GMT -5
Hoops.....I tried to get a tubal ligation at 35. I was not married and knew I never wanted any children. I have known since I was 12, and my wants have never wavered.....not once. I gave up after the 4th GYN I visited denied me. However, my husband got a vasectomy at 40, no questions asked. He called, made an appointment, was told what he needed to do, and it was a done deal. He showed up, they snipped. There is a HUGE disparity between how doctors handle male and female reproductive rights. BTW....neither my husband (he wasn’t at the time) nor I had any children. Neither did either of want any. This only goes to show you what the disparity of responses there are out there. Neither of us had any medical need for a sterilization, but DH’s insurance paid for his. Unfortunately, I could never get to that point. . We're talking about LAWS here though. I don't doubt it's EASIER to get a vasectomy than a tubal (part of it I'm sure due to the relative ease/safety of the 2 compared to one another). But it's a completely different discussion between "what are doctors comfortable doing" and "what is the law". I'm sure at least PART of the disparity is that a vasectomy is relatively easy to reverse if someone changes their mind (and I kind of don't blame doctors for being more cautious, because changing minds on that kind of thing isn't so rare as to be a non-factor). So the whole argument of "there should be laws governing male reproduction if we're going to have laws governing female reproduction" kind of falls apart immediately if people can't point to any laws actually governing female reproduction (since we're not talking about abortion, which is a joke, because everyone knows that was the point of this legislation to begin with). You're guessing about why doctors refused to grant a woman a sterilization while gladly letting a man have one in order to bend the facts to fit your theory. You don't actually KNOW. It wasn't that long ago that doctors discussed the medical conditions of wives with their husbands, and not with them. When women married, their property became their husband's property. My MIL wasn't able to set up a bank account on her own, she had to get her husband to sign for her, even though she had a job at the time. My DH just broke his leg and had surgery. Can you imagine if his doctors conferred with me, and me alone, about his treatment options? Laughable, right? Yet in many ways, men are still granted license over many aspects or women's lives, and no one blinks an eye, because it's always been that way.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Feb 14, 2020 19:18:59 GMT -5
The difference between women having as many children as they want, and men having as many children as they want. It takes 9 months for a woman to have a child. A man can father at least 280 children in that same 9 months. I'm all for men being responsible for birth control. However with a lot of men, the idea of a knife coming close to their private parts makes them want to run ....... fast and far.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,779
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 14, 2020 19:22:37 GMT -5
The difference between women having as many children as they want, and men having as many children as they want. It takes 9 months for a woman to have a child. A man can father at least 280 children in that same 9 months. I'm all for men being responsible for birth control. However with a lot of men, the idea of a knife coming close to their private parts makes them want to run ....... fast and far. yeah funny how men can't stand the thought of a knife near their privates but have no problem forcing women to push a watermelon through theirs.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Feb 14, 2020 22:57:08 GMT -5
I did have to sign off on my DH's vasectomy. This was 2010, I think. In Wisconsin. I don't know if it was because of laws, insurance shit, or doctor's office policy.
And this is probably a good place to plug Gabrielle Blair's post Men Cause 100% of Unplanned Pregnancies Here are the first few paragraphs.
If you want to prevent abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Men seem unable (or unwilling) to admit that they cause 100% of them.I realize that’s a bold statement. You’re likely thinking, “Wait. It takes two to tango!” While I fully agree with you in the case of intentional pregnancies, I argue that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. All of them.
Don’t believe me?
Let’s start with this: A woman’s egg is only fertile for about two days each month. Yes, there are exceptions, because nature. But one egg which is fertile two days each month is the baseline. And those fertile eggs are produced for a limited number of years. This means, on average, women are fertile for about 24 days per year.
But men are fertile 365 days a year. In fact, if you’re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory, a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year. While it’s true that sperm gets crappier as men age, it doesn’t have a fertility expiration date; men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty until death. So, starting with basic fertility stats and the calendar, it’s easy to see that men are the issue here.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 15, 2020 9:36:36 GMT -5
There are also differences in whether there's another life involved that you're allowed to terminate...which is pretty much the crux of abortion laws to begin with...so ignoring that fact isn't matching up anything at all. That's what is being missed. Ignoring the primary issue and the driver of the difference in order to throw some random poor comparison together simply ignores the actual issue. It's as ridiculous as all the people who say "a marriage is between a man and a woman, if we let a man marry a man then we have to also allow men to marry bicycles and apartment buildings". The primary issue is not an all-encompassing "reproductive rights" or "medical procedures", it's pregnancy...it's VERY specific to pregnancy...and so trying to rope in some "male equivalent" that doesn't exist is silly regardless of which side of the issue someone is on. Beyond that though, this particular case is a legislator going out of their way to waste people's time on something they almost certainly don't even actually believe in. It's governmental click-bait. No one here is talking about abortion, and you are going to get this thread bounced if you go there. This is talking about bodily autonomy. Let me give you an example that pertains to reproductive rights. If a woman wants a tubal ligation, she has to jump through a zillion hoops in order to receive one. If she is too young, they will say she will change her mind. If she is married, she may need her husband to sign off on it. However, if a man wants a vasectomy, no one bats an eye. This is trying to prevent a pregnancy, NOT abort one. I believe there are no laws stating that women need their husbands permission, nor that tubal ligation isn't an option for certain age groups. I didn't check every state, so maybe you can show me a current law that states otherwise. Doctor's offices have different policies, and if we need to create laws to stop those policies, maybe we should. But I believe the situations you are describing are cultural, not legal. That is also a problem - but raging against laws that don't exist isn't a way to solve it.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,779
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 15, 2020 9:54:37 GMT -5
I did have to sign off on my DH's vasectomy. This was 2010, I think. In Wisconsin. I don't know if it was because of laws, insurance shit, or doctor's office policy.
And this is probably a good place to plug Gabrielle Blair's post Men Cause 100% of Unplanned Pregnancies Here are the first few paragraphs.
If you want to prevent abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Men seem unable (or unwilling) to admit that they cause 100% of them.I realize that’s a bold statement. You’re likely thinking, “Wait. It takes two to tango!” While I fully agree with you in the case of intentional pregnancies, I argue that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. All of them.
Don’t believe me?
Let’s start with this: A woman’s egg is only fertile for about two days each month. Yes, there are exceptions, because nature. But one egg which is fertile two days each month is the baseline. And those fertile eggs are produced for a limited number of years. This means, on average, women are fertile for about 24 days per year.
But men are fertile 365 days a year. In fact, if you’re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory, a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year. While it’s true that sperm gets crappier as men age, it doesn’t have a fertility expiration date; men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty until death. So, starting with basic fertility stats and the calendar, it’s easy to see that men are the issue here. DH and I were talking about this just the other day, when discussing a case where a woman was attacked and raped in her home, and when she shot and killed her attacker, she was convicted of murder, rather than getting off with self defense (Alabama is a 'stand your ground' state where you are allowed to kill someone assaulting you in your home). In Alabama, women are 10% less likely to be successful in using the 'stand your ground' defense than men. I think that's due to the fact that men think other men will get away with whatever women will let them get away with (boys will be boys) and it's the women who must prevent these situations from happening, whether that's by refusing to have sex until marriage, or in refusing to allow non family member men into their homes. Women are in charge of maintaining morals for both sexes. If they break those rules, it's the women who have to bear the brunt of the consequences, whether it's carrying and delivering unwanted babies, or going to prison for murdering a man who was raping them.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 15, 2020 10:15:37 GMT -5
Is there a medically necessary reason for a vasectomy? Does it serve a purpose other than stopping the atrocity called condoms?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 15, 2020 10:43:26 GMT -5
Is there a medically necessary reason for a vasectomy? Does it serve a purpose other than stopping the atrocity called condoms? Not that I've ever heard of. Its purpose is strictly contraception.
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,287
|
Post by andi9899 on Feb 15, 2020 11:19:39 GMT -5
Hoops.....I tried to get a tubal ligation at 35. I was not married and knew I never wanted any children. I have known since I was 12, and my wants have never wavered.....not once. I gave up after the 4th GYN I visited denied me. However, my husband got a vasectomy at 40, no questions asked. He called, made an appointment, was told what he needed to do, and it was a done deal. He showed up, they snipped. There is a HUGE disparity between how doctors handle male and female reproductive rights. BTW....neither my husband (he wasn’t at the time) nor I had any children. Neither did either of want any. This only goes to show you what the disparity of responses there are out there. Neither of us had any medical need for a sterilization, but DH’s insurance paid for his. Unfortunately, I could never get to that point. . I was denied several times as well. I knew after T2 was born that I was done having babies. No doctor would do the surgery. I finally got my current gyno to do it. It took years of being denied though.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 15, 2020 14:02:22 GMT -5
I did have to sign off on my DH's vasectomy. This was 2010, I think. In Wisconsin. I don't know if it was because of laws, insurance shit, or doctor's office policy.
And this is probably a good place to plug Gabrielle Blair's post Men Cause 100% of Unplanned Pregnancies Here are the first few paragraphs.
If you want to prevent abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Men seem unable (or unwilling) to admit that they cause 100% of them.I realize that’s a bold statement. You’re likely thinking, “Wait. It takes two to tango!” While I fully agree with you in the case of intentional pregnancies, I argue that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. All of them.
Don’t believe me?
Let’s start with this: A woman’s egg is only fertile for about two days each month. Yes, there are exceptions, because nature. But one egg which is fertile two days each month is the baseline. And those fertile eggs are produced for a limited number of years. This means, on average, women are fertile for about 24 days per year.
But men are fertile 365 days a year. In fact, if you’re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory, a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year. While it’s true that sperm gets crappier as men age, it doesn’t have a fertility expiration date; men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty until death. So, starting with basic fertility stats and the calendar, it’s easy to see that men are the issue here. DH and I were talking about this just the other day, when discussing a case where a woman was attacked and raped in her home, and when she shot and killed her attacker, she was convicted of murder, rather than getting off with self defense (Alabama is a 'stand your ground' state where you are allowed to kill someone assaulting you in your home). In Alabama, women are 10% less likely to be successful in using the 'stand your ground' defense than men. I think that's due to the fact that men think other men will get away with whatever women will let them get away with (boys will be boys) and it's the women who must prevent these situations from happening, whether that's by refusing to have sex until marriage, or in refusing to allow non family member men into their homes. Women are in charge of maintaining morals for both sexes. If they break those rules, it's the women who have to bear the brunt of the consequences, whether it's carrying and delivering unwanted babies, or going to prison for murdering a man who was raping them. The female lawyer defending Weinstein was asked if she has ever been sexually assaulted and she answered "No. I would never let myself get in that situation."
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 15, 2020 15:42:21 GMT -5
The point of the proposed law was to highlight the ridiculousness of laws governing the reproductive rights of women.
It doesn't really matter, in the real world, whether the law demanded a spousal signature for a tubal ligation or whether it was just the policy of the medical provider. The point is that women HAVE had obstacles thrust in the way of obtaining permanent contraception. In a way that men have not.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,712
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Feb 16, 2020 1:27:09 GMT -5
Before the 70's women had to have so many kids and be a certain age to get a tubal. I wanted one after DD, wasn't going to take that chance again. My gyn said do not get pregnant that the college of gynecologists were just changing the rule and it would be a month or two. Everytime I went in for well baby check he updated. He then set up the surgery for me and one other young woman. He was afraid the local hospital might not let it happen, but my husband still had to sign off. I told him he would or that was it. No more chances of another mentally challenged child. And my Catholic, Columbian doctor did it. I was thrilled and no more worries for me in that matter. Later maybe 10 years I needed a hysterectomy, had lots of female problems and that was the best thing I ever had done. I don't know what the laws are now and in the time of supposed freedom, I could not believe that you only needed to ask. Birth control pills were in their infancy and they made me sick.
Also it was about that time, maybe a bit later for me to get a credit card in my name. I was traveling for work and needed it. I was a woman of the 60's and just assumed this would not be an issue, what a surprise, but I got one.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,124
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 16, 2020 22:19:26 GMT -5
Here's a somewhat related issue to this thread's subject. And not that long ago too. A 1970 Law Led to the Mass Sterilization of Native American Women. That History Still MattersMarie Sanchez, chief tribal judge on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, arrived in Geneva in 1977 with a clear message to deliver to the United Nations Convention on Indigenous Rights. American Indian women, she argued, were targets of the “modern form” of genocide—sterilization. Over the six-year period that had followed the passage of the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970, physicians sterilized perhaps 25% of Native American women of childbearing age, and there is evidence suggesting that the numbers were actually even higher. Some of these procedures were performed under pressure or duress, or without the women’s knowledge or understanding. The law subsidized sterilizations for patients who received their health care through the Indian Health Serviceand for Medicaid patients, and black and Latina women were also targets of coercive sterilization in these years. But while Sanchez and the Native women with whom she organized responded to the results of that 1970 law, they also recognized that the fight against involuntary sterilization was one of many intertwined injustices rooted—as was their resistance—in a much longer history of U.S. colonialism. And that history continues to this day. Complete article here: A 1970 Law Led to the Mass Sterilization of Native American Women. That History Still Matters
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 17, 2020 8:35:40 GMT -5
We're talking about LAWS here though. I don't doubt it's EASIER to get a vasectomy than a tubal (part of it I'm sure due to the relative ease/safety of the 2 compared to one another). But it's a completely different discussion between "what are doctors comfortable doing" and "what is the law". I'm sure at least PART of the disparity is that a vasectomy is relatively easy to reverse if someone changes their mind (and I kind of don't blame doctors for being more cautious, because changing minds on that kind of thing isn't so rare as to be a non-factor). So the whole argument of "there should be laws governing male reproduction if we're going to have laws governing female reproduction" kind of falls apart immediately if people can't point to any laws actually governing female reproduction (since we're not talking about abortion, which is a joke, because everyone knows that was the point of this legislation to begin with). You're guessing about why doctors refused to grant a woman a sterilization while gladly letting a man have one in order to bend the facts to fit your theory. You don't actually KNOW. It wasn't that long ago that doctors discussed the medical conditions of wives with their husbands, and not with them. When women married, their property became their husband's property. My MIL wasn't able to set up a bank account on her own, she had to get her husband to sign for her, even though she had a job at the time. My DH just broke his leg and had surgery. Can you imagine if his doctors conferred with me, and me alone, about his treatment options? Laughable, right? Yet in many ways, men are still granted license over many aspects or women's lives, and no one blinks an eye, because it's always been that way. I didn't make ANY statement about granting "a woman" a sterilization. I guessed that part of why it is easier to get one procedure vs another is the relative ease of one procedure over the other. I don't know a specific doctor's intentions, but I know common sense that it's typically easier to get a simple procedure than a more complicated one. We're talking about TODAY, and LAWS...you seem to be intent on living in the past. If that works for you, that's fine, but it is utterly and completely irrelevant to the discussion or current laws.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 17, 2020 8:36:41 GMT -5
The point of the proposed law was to highlight the ridiculousness of laws governing the reproductive rights of women.It doesn't really matter, in the real world, whether the law demanded a spousal signature for a tubal ligation or whether it was just the policy of the medical provider. The point is that women HAVE had obstacles thrust in the way of obtaining permanent contraception. In a way that men have not. "Laws governing" is current tense...can you point to these laws since I keep asking and nobody seems to be able to answer.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 17, 2020 9:43:54 GMT -5
Although our history does matter, and provides context, it can confuse the issue when we are discussing today's laws and practices.
I believe it is still easier to get vasectomies vs tubal. With new technologies, tubal isn't as invasive as the past, although I believe tubals still does require a general, which is always going to be a bigger deal than a local. I hope the doctor considers the whole woman's HEALTH when considering the procedure. But, I do suspect that with many doctors there is a tradition to consider a husband's wishes.
There are solid studies and books about how the medical industry treats women as second class citizens. Even female doctors exhibit a bias when it comes to diagnosing and treating women, especially with chronic health problems. The idea that they would "double check" a woman's decision to sterilize themselves (compared to the rate they double check a man's decision to do so) is not far-fetched at all.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 17, 2020 9:47:31 GMT -5
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,233
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 17, 2020 10:59:43 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 14:46:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2020 11:01:51 GMT -5
Reading your stories I’m sorry any of you had to jump through hoops for medical care and the fact a man had to sign off off in certain scenarios sounds straight up midevil.
Makes me sick to think your stories are certainly not the exception and so many have had to go through it.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 17, 2020 11:16:42 GMT -5
The responses to Cruz's tweet are spot on....
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 17, 2020 11:34:36 GMT -5
Who is pretending? I brought this up on Page 1, and I was told "no no no, this has NOTHING to do with abortions, we're talking about non-abortion legislation". Which is it? Is this proposed legislation all about abortion legislation? Or nothing at all to do with abortion legislation? It can't be both.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 17, 2020 11:40:49 GMT -5
Who is pretending? I brought this up on Page 1, and I was told "no no no, this has NOTHING to do with abortions, we're talking about non-abortion legislation". Which is it? Is this proposed legislation all about abortion legislation? Or nothing at all to do with abortion legislation? It can't be both. I can't speak for other posters. And we can't discuss the "a" word. The end.
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Feb 17, 2020 11:46:15 GMT -5
Here's a somewhat related issue to this thread's subject. And not that long ago too. A 1970 Law Led to the Mass Sterilization of Native American Women. That History Still MattersEven more recently, according to a podcast that I heard this weekend, doctors were still diagnosing women with "hysteria" until the 1980s. Doctors used this diagnosis for any female behavior that they did not understand. From wiki, "Female hysteria was once a common medical diagnosis for women, which was described as exhibiting a wide array of symptoms, including anxiety, shortness of breath, fainting, nervousness, sexual desire, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in the abdomen, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, (paradoxically) sexually forward behaviour, and a " tendency to cause trouble for others."" I received a medically-required hysterectomy 7 or 8 years ago. When I was doing research on it, I ran across an internet article from a well-known medical institute that stated that women who had a hysterectomy were no longer women. I could, but I don't want to go search for this article and give whoever wrote it more publicity. It's not just about the laws on the books today, but the general attitude that men have about women. I don't necessarily think that this is a good idea, but maybe there needs to be some equalization.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 17, 2020 11:46:24 GMT -5
Who is pretending? I brought this up on Page 1, and I was told "no no no, this has NOTHING to do with abortions, we're talking about non-abortion legislation". Which is it? Is this proposed legislation all about abortion legislation? Or nothing at all to do with abortion legislation? It can't be both. I can't speak for other posters. And we can't discuss the "a" word. The end. That's fine. I'm just clarifying that when I say "point me to the current laws", I'm speaking specifically to people who are saying there are laws that have nothing to do with abortion limiting women's reproductive rights. So far that's just been met with anecdotes and musings on history...but not the laws people claim exist.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 17, 2020 11:51:52 GMT -5
I can't speak for other posters. And we can't discuss the "a" word. The end. That's fine. I'm just clarifying that when I say "point me to the current laws", I'm speaking specifically to people who are saying there are laws that have nothing to do with abortion limiting women's reproductive rights. So far that's just been met with anecdotes and musings on history...but not the laws people claim exist. I have not seen anyone say "there are laws that have nothing to do with abortion limiting women's reproductive rights". I HAVE seen (and experienced) obstacles to permanent contraception. And there ARE obstacles to women obtaining contraception. The original post is about a proposed law designed to highlight the irony and hypocrisy of laws restricting women's access to safe and legal abortion. Men would never tolerate any law governing their bodily autonomy.
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Feb 17, 2020 11:59:51 GMT -5
I can't speak for other posters. And we can't discuss the "a" word. The end. That's fine. I'm just clarifying that when I say "point me to the current laws", I'm speaking specifically to people who are saying there are laws that have nothing to do with abortion limiting women's reproductive rights. So far that's just been met with anecdotes and musings on history...but not the laws people claim exist. Just for clarification: You only care about written regulations re: women reproductive rights. Do you only care about USA regulations rather than other country regulations? How about what the US government chooses to subsidize (e.g., viagra)? What about society's pressures (e.g., girls in Africa cannot go to school due to lack of hygiene products)? I want to know because I am sure that I can find some law on the books, but I want to know the parameters first.
|
|