NOT A DEBATE, just a question.
(If this should be somewhere else, please move it for me)
I have been seeing this "Stop the war on women" petition http://signon.org/sign/stop-the-war-...t&r_by=2619518 and I don't get it. Seriously. I am not trying to debate whether or not abortion is right wrong, just the trans vag exam.
Throughout my pregnancies and ttcing journies, I have had a lot of trans vag and other "peeks" into my vag. Some were more uncomfortable than others, big deal (to me). It is just procedure. I see it as if I get my tooth pulled, I get an xray for the best possible results. I see the trans vag u/s as a way to help the dr assess the situation and go about the proper technique. I feel that this is what is best.
The bill doesn't say, the dr must show/listen to the heart rate, etc, just that a tv u/s needs to be done. So what is the problem? I seriously don't get it.
I get some women are very private and don't want a tv u/s. But those have to chose a 5 minute (if that long?) u/s or a lifelong child raising. I feel it is less invasive than a pap. I really feel that people who push for this have never had an u/s and don't really know what it entails.
I have asked several IRL friends(via email and FB) to explain it to me and no one answers me.
I am really looking for answers not a debate, nor someone who agrees.
I don't understand why less treatment is better??
Hmm.. this is how I understand it. I am ALSO not debating this, and am ONLY putting my opinion out there.
The "bad guys" (according to these women) are not only taking away their right to abort, but forcing them to undergo an uncomfortable procedure to prove that the fetus is, in fact, alive and well. My guess is they are not happy about having to have an ultrasound to see their fetus (embryo, gestational sac, what have you) before they make that decision to do away with it. They would rather take the pregnancy test as truth, abort and be done without any alternative procedures or proof involved. In a way I understand this. If your decision has been made to not keep the pregnancy (which is a difficult choice to begin with), then seeing the pregnancy before you destroy it is that much more difficult. ON the other hand, I understand that it is better for the doctors to have a look and see what they are going into before they start.
Overall, the :war on women: they are referring to is simply, the government should have NO say in what we do with our bodies.
I guess my problem is the wording of "war on women" do they want a coat hanger in a dark room? I think that they ae taking a step backwards and it will hurt women more than help.
I also didn't understand last year when everyone was in an uproar about clinics needing to have wider doors to accomodate hospital beds. I have been on the tiny "board like" cots in the regular obgyns office, I would prefer the wider hospital bed over that.
I am just so confused by this thing?? I don't know what to say and I don't want to offend or start a debate, because I know not everyone shares my naivety.
I hear what you are saying totally.. its not naive! it is just the other side of the coin... like any issue that gets wrapped into politics there are people who will split hairs 300 ways to Sunday to get their point made. I personally do not feel abortion has a place on the desks of politicians, male or otherwise. But I do also see the need for regulation on behalf of the medical community for the safety of patients and doctors alike.
Originally Posted by lil96
The only reason I can think of is if someone has been raped, the trans vag u/s would bring that back for them? I have not had a trans vag u/s so I don't know what it involves.
Like you all have said, I am NOT debating here (we already have a totally fun board for that on here lol... a smidge of sarcasm there!), but the vag exam was put in place for both of those reasons. One, to ensure that the Dr. performing the abortion has a clear idea of gestational age and all other info that he needs, but also to require the woman in question to actually see the baby that she's about to abort. Being pro-life, I have no problem with this. If it changes even one woman's mind on what she's about to do then I'm all for it. On the other hand, I think that it's funny that so many women would have a problem with a DOCTOR performing a routine U/S but are willing and ready to abort a child... seems a little twisted to me. Besides, even if one day that same woman chooses to actually carry a baby to term, chances are she might require an U/S like this if baby is younger than 13 weeks... would it be a problem then I wonder? Too invasive??
Someone else told me that the bill also means there will be no more BCP, IUD or morning after pills. Now, I think so why aren't those points being pushed? Do they push the trans vag u/s due to sensationalism? Second of all, I don't think they could ever do away with BCP or IUD; morning after is new, so maybe they could stop that?
But this is still just hearsay as I still haven't seen the actual bill yet.
I remember when I had one with DD I didn't know that they would be doing it internally and because of this I felt REALLY uncomfortable and embarrassed. I HATE internal exams, but can cope with them when I am prepared for it emotionally and physically (for example I like to ensure I've showered that morning and washed down there thoroughly and sometimes I bring a stress ball with me). I'm sure there are other people that have anxiety about this kind of thing too, especially those who have been victim of rape at some point in their lives.
Originally Posted by SouthernMom
The issue is though, as starryblue says...they are going to have a far more invasive procedure (I assume, I don't actually know what is involved in an abortion as I've never been interested enough to inquire) which will require them to be equally as exposed. If they are having the abortion under GA, then why cant ONLY for specific cases of rape the women be under during the u/s to avoid being put through that kind of exam. Although when I was raped I needed to have an internal exam from a doctor to check for STDs and to try and collect a sample for evidence anyway, I had a victim support worker with me who held my hand and reassured me that what I was feeling was the dr ect..ect..
I personally think it is a good idea, and I have difficulty understanding the whole opposing argument for the same reasons as Starryblue but I'm pro-life also so I'm probably bias :p lol
I have lived through being raped twice. I have also had a ton of trans-vag u/s. No real comparison, the u/s did not bring back the trauma of the rapes.
The trans-vag u/s can be uncomfortable but not bad. Easier then a pap I find.
There seems to be a whole lot of variables.
personally, i agree with you that the u/s is the least of a woman's worries if she's going to go ahead with a elective surgical procedure to remove an unwanted pregnancy.
But when it comes to rights, i feel like if we let the government have a say in whether or not a woman has the right to abort or not then its the first step to them being able to say how, when, and how many children a woman is allowed to have.
I'm afraid that if the government has such specific guidelines regarding abortion, then is the government now going to arrest a woman who refuses induction or c-section at 42 weeks gestation with a healthy baby because she doesn't believe in that guideline?
i just don't feel that any legislation belongs in a woman's uterus. unless of course, they decide to pass similar laws regarding a man's testes.