Abortion, however, is a surgical procedure, and there are after-effects you don't (or at least I haven't) seen with contraceptive use.
What about the morning after pill? No surgery required.
I'm so evil and... skanky. And I think I'm kinda gay.
Willow ,'Storyteller'
Natter 37: Oddly Enough, We've Had This Conversation Before.
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Allyson - Jul 20, 2005 12:21:20 pm PDT #1610 of 10002
Wait, is this real-world child support, where the money goes to buy food for the kids, or MRA fantasyland child support where the women just buy Ferraris and cocaine? -Jessica
Cashmere - Jul 20, 2005 12:23:12 pm PDT #1611 of 10002
Now tagless for your comfort.
What about the morning after pill? No surgery required.
If it doesn't take, they could have to follow up with a surgical abortion. I forget what the % of failure in RU486 is.
Lyra Jane - Jul 20, 2005 12:24:11 pm PDT #1612 of 10002
Up with the sun
What about the morning after pill? No surgery required.
It's important to distinguish between the morning after pill -- superconcentrated birth control pills that prevent implantation -- and chemical abortion through RU-486. I'm sure you wouldn't do this, but a lot of people seem to blur the two, when they're very different.
Topic!Cindy - Jul 20, 2005 12:24:29 pm PDT #1613 of 10002
What is even happening?
What about the morning after pill? No surgery required.It pings me far less. I'm not crazy about the idea that my kids could get any medication without my knowledge, but I know it's less (overall) risky for my kid to go on b.c. pills, than to conceive, provided she takes precaution against disease, as well. Assuming the risk of the morning after pill is more or less the same as B.C. pills, I think it's a different kettle of fish.
Cashmere - Jul 20, 2005 12:25:30 pm PDT #1614 of 10002
Now tagless for your comfort.
Lyra Jane, thank you for the distinction. I was assuming she meant RU486 when I posted a response but yeah, big difference.
brenda m - Jul 20, 2005 12:27:29 pm PDT #1615 of 10002
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there
Cindy, I don't think you're wrong. But - you're an adult, making a rational argument. There are kids out there who will feel that anything is better than telling their parents. And that's not just young women whose parents are or are likely to be abusive. Like others have said, I don't have kids, so I hesitate to speak as if I know all the ins and outs. But I believe that I would want my daughter to tell me, I would hope that I had raised my daughter to feel that she could, and at the end of the day, I would want her to have access to legitimate, responsible medical providers if she felt she couldn't, whether that feeling was based in reality or not.
DavidS - Jul 20, 2005 12:33:52 pm PDT #1616 of 10002
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
But you of course have those rights, and they're simply not at issue here-- this is not a law that hinders good parenting, or somehow prevents you from parenting. The positive obligation is on telling a parent whose child does not want guidance, encouragement, support, discussion-- all the way to forcing the issue with a court order.
This relates to Cashmere's experience.
Any parenting my parents needed to do, they did way before I got pregnant. It was my own mistake and my own choice. And I don't think the year between 17 and 18 meant a bit of difference in my maturity level so the law would have just made an already tough situation that much harder for me.
That covers my perspective on it.
Cashmere - Jul 20, 2005 12:35:51 pm PDT #1617 of 10002
Now tagless for your comfort.
I have to step away to make dinner but it's been an interesting discussion with good points being made.
The boys want tacos.
Connie Neil - Jul 20, 2005 12:36:39 pm PDT #1618 of 10002
brillig
When I was barely a teenager, my mother said, "You can tell me anything." I believed her, but I never told her anything because there wasn't anything to tell. I was a boring kid. When I was in college, and things became more interesting, she wasn't around to tell, and I never could think of the right time to bring things up when we were together. I'm not sure how the topic came up, but one evening my mother said, "If you ever came home pregnant, I think I'd throw you out of the house." I think this was her version of the "Don't have sex till you're married" talk.
My mother's issues with the subject didn't appear till it was almost past time for her to worry about things (ie, all daughters late teenaged or older). I have no reason to believe she wouldn't have followed through on that threat.
Which is just to say a past history of non-abuse is no indicator of a future of non-abuse.
DavidS - Jul 20, 2005 12:39:01 pm PDT #1619 of 10002
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
Which is just to say a past history of non-abuse is no indicator of a future of non-abuse.
It may not be conclusive, but I do think it's indicative. Which is why investigators are prone to saying things like, "There's no history of past abuse" as if it meant something.