Sanger - racist and eugenisist

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2008
Sanger - racist and eugenisist
78
Sun, 02-03-2008 - 11:06pm

Interesting read from the mother of PP.ague


http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/


http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/abortion_eugenics/star-tribune_eugenics.html


Sure, she was pro woman - as long as you were the 'right' kind of woman.

 "Pascal's Wager," which states that believing in God costs you nothing if you're wrong, and wins you everything if you're right.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2008
Mon, 02-04-2008 - 11:46am

Against her religion to get a tubal - but abortion would be ok?

 "Pascal's Wager," which states that believing in God costs you nothing if you're wrong, and wins you everything if you're right.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-15-2006
Mon, 02-04-2008 - 11:51am

"I never understood this argument.

Photobucket 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-15-2006
Mon, 02-04-2008 - 11:56am

" Against her religion to get a tubal - but abortion would be ok?

Photobucket 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Mon, 02-04-2008 - 12:24pm

<>

A 'tubal' is surgical sterilization, and does not have a particularly successful rate of reversal. Makes me nuts that that particular myth keeps going around, some women think a tubal lligation is some kind of contraception useful for 8-10 years, at which point they'll reconsider it. These are the attitudes that are convincing docs that young women shouldn't have access to tubals.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Mon, 02-04-2008 - 12:27pm

<>

What makes you think so?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Mon, 02-04-2008 - 12:37pm

As I understand it, it depends on the type of "tubal" for it to be reversible, correct?

"It is right to be contented with what we have, but never with what we are."

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2005
Mon, 02-04-2008 - 12:56pm

"As far as welfare - mandating an agreement that a woman would have no more kids or loose benefits is completely resonable - so too is having a pregnant woman with multiple children agree to a tubal in order to recieve benefits for the new child."


I'm not a huge fan of welfare by any means... However, you would SERIOUSLY advocate for removing aid that should be used to benefit a child if a woman didn't agree to undergo this procedure? Doesn't this sort of smack of what many PL'ers are constantly accused of? You care about the fetus, but once it's born, who cares?


Powered by Lorf Almighty!


Powered by Lorf!

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-15-2006
Mon, 02-04-2008 - 12:59pm

"And a new method that is non-surgical and a blocking agent is inserted into each tube, but they aren't cut and is permanent - non-reversible.

Photobucket 

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-03-2007
Mon, 02-04-2008 - 1:01pm

Yup. You got it exactly, as best I understand. There are several different methods for surgical sterilization and each one has different failure rates, and different amenability to reversal.

"Tubal ligation" is one of the words like "kleenex" where the name of something specific has caught on and is used to describe other similar things.

Surgical sterilization can be accomplished by putting clips on the tubes to block 'em, by cutting the tubes and tying them back, by cauterizing them, and the last method you mentioned, Essure, puts a coil in the tube that scars down to block it.

Success of reversal seems to correlate with chance of failure. Being young when you have it done and young when you reverse it *really* helps. Having the tubes cut and tied rather than cauterized is easier to reverse (it's also a more invasive procedure to have it done in the first place, with bigger incisions and more risk of damage to surrounding organs).

Essure, the newest method where a little plastic and metal coil is inserted into the tube, is awesome. It can be done during an office visit, takes about 20 minutes, has less risk to the woman and a quicker recovery. It takes a few months to become effective while the scar forms, but thereafter has a lower failure rate.

~~~In the end, we need for women to NOT consider any of these methods to be reversible. Because you can't count on it. And it would be far better for women to just get sure of themselves and choose the safer, more effective, even less reversible method.

cool patient sheet with line drawings explaining the different methods
http://patients.uptodate.com/topic.asp?file=wom_issu/6214

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-11-2008
Mon, 02-04-2008 - 1:59pm

Not trying to be difficult, but please find me some information about a faith that is anti tubal but pro abortion.

 "Pascal's Wager," which states that believing in God costs you nothing if you're wrong, and wins you everything if you're right.

Pages