A tough situation

Hello fellow DUers,

I decided that I wanted my very first post to be a serious one even though I have been tempted in the Lounge many times. Here it is.


How does one deal with a young woman who is not on birth control for stupid reasons. I worked with this young woman (19 yrs) for about a year and one morning she let's me know that she is pregnant. I didn't know her very well at that point and I asked her what she was going to. Her response knocked my socks off. "Well, this is the fifth time that I've been pregnant and my doctor is concerned about me having another abortion, so I am probably going to keep it." Having been familiar with the abortion clinic experience, I asked her what kind of birth control the nurse recommended for her after her first one. She said that there was no recommendation (which I don't believe) and that she had tried the pill but it gave her a rash. I asked her if she had tried a different brand or even a different method and she smilied sweetly and said no. Aghhhhh.

Now, I am working with a slightly older woman (24) who has had something like 3 pregnancy scares in the last 5 months. Once again I asked what method of B/C she used and she answered none. She has had one abortion.

I am NOT happy with this situation. It seems that abortion-as-birth control is fairily common with young women. With all the choices for contraception why are so many young women eschewing it and instead opting for an incredably invasive procedure that will eventually ruin their bodies. I know that after my abortion, I have not missed a pill in 4 years. I need some taking points to tell these girls. I don't want to alienate them or come off as some anti-abortion freak (I most definitley am NOT), but just something to make them think twice about not using birth control.

As one who believes with our nation’s founders that the purpose of government is to secure the rights of individuals to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I have always found abortion to be the most difficult of all issues on which to derive a principled position.

That every human being owns his or her own body is, to use the founders’ phrase, self-evident. As such, I do not see where any government can rightfully claim the power to violate the sanctity of any individual’s own body.

At the same time, I have never been persuaded that a fetus is not human. I find the claim that a fetus does not enjoy an equal right to life to be a highly questionable argument of convenience. I might add that I was particular disturbed to see a recent Newsweek Magazine cover story with the headline: “Should a Fetus Have Rights?” That phrasing of the question assumes that natural rights can be granted by some type of vote or legislation, a view that is completely at odds with the core American understanding of what rights are and where they come from. Such an assumption must be honestly recognized as un-American and dangerous, because “rights” that can be given by the government or the voters can also be taken away by the same means, and therefore in no sense can be seen as “unalienable.”

In any event, I believe a compelling argument can be made that during pregnancy, where a mother and fetus share the same biological system, there is in fact a unity of two individuals with rightful claims to a single body. In a real sense, a pregnant woman’s body also belongs to her fetus.

Consequently, the desire of a woman to abort her fetus is one of those few instances where the government is required to weigh the balance of two competing sets of equally compelling rights in conflict. A legal resolution to such a conundrum must necessarily be imperfect, just as we accept that there should be a legal age of consent regarding sex, even though every kid is different and a one-size- fits-all age determination is at best an imperfect compromise . What is important, therefore, is that the ultimate legal disposition of this issue be one that reinforces the government’s obligation to preserve as far as possible the sanctity of all the individual rights involved.

In such a circumstance, government policy should not unilaterally deny one set of rights in favor of the other. Instead, the law must seek to establish the legal prioritization of the two sets of rights in relation to each other.

The best way to achieve that outcome, I believe, is for the law to recognize a pregnant woman’s first priority claim to the body she shares with her fetus, but to treat this priority as a kind of “right of first decision.”

Under this doctrine, the mother’s right to abort would be recognized and protected under law for some reasonable period that should rightfully be debated and defined at the individual state level. Should the mother fail to exercise her right by the end of this period, the law could then deem her to have waived that right for the remainder of her pregnancy. When weighed against the need to protect at some point the fetus’ equal right to life, I do not think this approach creates an undue burden on the rights of the mother.

Clearly, the law ought to make some provision for allowing later-term abortions to accommodate an extraordinary, specific risk to a mother’s life. But I note, with some disgust, that there are physicians, who would be prepared to argue that any pregnancy is a threat to every woman’s life – a position which I believe should not be adopted into law.

I admit that this approach to the abortion will not satisfy those at either extreme of the current debate, but I believe that it comes as close to achieving proper justice and dignity as is possible for laws made by humans.

Ultimately, I do not believe that abortion legislation is a matter for the federal government’s attention, and certainly should not be a significant issue in a presidential election. Like laws relating to murder, which are generally not matters for federal concern, I feel strongly that the abortion debate is more appropriately handled by the people and their legislators at the individual state level.

People tend to forget that if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, that event would not outlaw the performance of a single abortion. All it would do is decentralize abortion policy and allow voters and legislators in 50 states to work out their own laws on the subject. Given the volatility of the abortion debate in our nation, it is politically inconceivable that in the absence of Roe v. Wade abortion would be outlawed entirely in more than a handful of states, if that many.

I do agree with the Supreme Court’s finding in Roe v. Wade that there is such thing as a right to privacy. I believe that right is clearly supported by the 9th amendment to the Constitution, and I find it impossible that a government founded on the principle of individual liberty would not recognize such a right.

But in the end, I do not believe that privacy is the relevant issue in the abortion question as I have laid it out here, and I believe that Roe v. Wade is bad constitutional law because it asserts improper federal authority over an area that by right ought to be left to the states and to the people.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/09/09_402.html

This is a summary of an article in Mother Jones. You might be able to find an actual copy of the magazine (September/October 2004).

That partial birth bill is troubling. I've saying that for a long time. But I suppose as a woman I don't really understand the complexities of such a bill.


:eyes:

I agree with some points that you are making and indeed I disagree with many as well. If RvW was overturned tommorrow, more states than you think would outlaw legal abortions. But all that aside, the issue is contraception. We are talking about young women, who even with all the education about reproductive and sexual health, still don't get it. Why not avoid the all the debate and get yourself on a regimen that would prevent pregnancy from ever occuring. I mean a rash? Come on - that is no excuse. The pill isn't the only form of contraception.

I'll bet that these women went to public schools with abstinence programs.

And easier access to birth control. Are there any regulations in your state that would discourage these women from getting birth control?

I don't really understand how these women can fail to come by the most easily-accessed and inexpensive form of birth control: the condom. I've heard some girls say they worry the men will be insulted. Sorry, but if you're afraid to ask him to wear one, then you probably aren't ready to have sex, and if he refuses to wear one, then he isn't worth your time.

These two young women, however, are in long-term relationships. The young one who had her baby (a gorgeous baby girl) has to deal with a bit of a dick at home. He's good to her and the kid but he is pretty traditional - won't wear a condom because they have been together for 2 years! I told her how stupid that was and she agreed but I don't think she pushed the issue at home. As for the other one, she uses the 'rhythm method' - a bit unreliable.

Planned Parenthood if you fall below a certain income level. I would urge her to check it out...especially if she is in a long term relationship where she doesn't want to use condoms.

Also, she can get all of her routine obgyn checkups done at Planned Parenthood, again, for free if you're below a certain income level...don't know what it is exactly (it may depend on the state) but I fell in that group for a long time and PP was amazingly helpful.

is a fairly common place birth control method among young women.

You're missing the problem. The problem is what to offer the young women who become pregnant over and over again while refusing b/c. In the absence of low cognition, this can only be considered an attention getting behavior. These are people who need replacements for this need for attention. Remind them too of the hazards of Aids, and other STD's.

These women crave attention. Why else would someone you've worked with for a year but barely know tell you they're pregnant for the fifth time and are contemplating abortion number five? If they couldn't get pregnant they would find some other way to add drama to their lives.

They don't just need a replacement for this attention, they need to deal with whatever is causing them to seek it.

I was a near abortion, which is damn depressing to me. My parents couldn't afford me, but at the last minute I was put up for adoption. Adoption is a great alternative to abortion, seeing as wasting a life is not the best idea. I'm pro choice, but I'm not pro slut. If you sleep around, and get FOUR ABORTIONS, you need serious psycological help. No matter how you put it, abortion is murded.

I'm pro chioce because I don't believe the government should take control of your body. That's sick, and isn't good.

Although, neither is 4 abortions.

Mental scarring, anyone?

My step-father was adopted. His adoptive mother held it against him every day of his life that he was a bastard. She was cold, controlling, and cruel. When she died, she left him 1 dollar of her very large estate.

Why did she adopt? Because that's what people did back then when they couldn't have children.

I work with an organization that works with children in therapy who are being abused because they're adopted. Holding therapy and re-birthing therapy scars and kills adopted children because their adoptive parents don't realize that not all children are alike.

These kids go through hell at the hands of their therapits and their adoptive parents - often a worse hell than they experienced with their natal families.

Personally, while I'd never wish a child that's here to be dead, there are a lot of cases where never having come into being at all would be a better option than living to be tortured.

For the record, I do not believe in the soul, and I don't believe the basis for consciousness begins until at least the end of the second trimester.

Pcat

an incubator.

"I'm pro choice, but I'm not pro slut. If you sleep around, and get FOUR ABORTIONS, you need serious psycological help. No matter how you put it, abortion is murded."

so, she's a crazy slut?? how republican of you....

Some women will always live their lives recklessly without any forethought or vision.

It is the upcoming girls in elementary school that need the guidance and direction.

They're aren't "living recklessly"?

ultimately the woman's responsiblity. part of it should be choosing men who will wear a freakin condom.

in a situation like this, where one woman has presumably had sex with multiple partners and is contemplating another notch in the abortion pole, i'd say she bears a good bit of responsiblity for the situation.

birth control is
ultimately the woman's responsiblity.

Mm hmm.

And to whom does she owe this "responsibility"?

"To herself", will you say? And is it now your job to tell me what my responsibilities to myself are?

I'd have said, rather, birth control is ultimately a woman's choice.

part of it should be choosing men who will wear a freakin condom.

Have you ever considered wasting less of your time and effort making rules for other people to follow in matters that are none of your business?

in a situation like this, where one woman has presumably had sex with multiple partners and is contemplating another notch in the abortion pole, i'd say she bears a good bit of responsiblity for the situation.

And again I'd say: who the fuck cares what you'd say?

If someone like the woman in question (or at least like the description we've been given of the woman in question) actually asked me my opinion about her situation (and I can't imagine why she would), I might say that I don't regard some of her past choices as wise ones. As far as I can tell, I don't have sufficient information about anybody to have such an opinion, and nobody has asked me for it anyhow.

Guess I won't get any answers to my questions now.

"How does one deal with a young woman who is not on birth control for stupid reasons"

You don't "deal" with it - in the same way you don't "deal" with other aspects of your coworkers lives.

If she has 5 abortions or 500 it's really none of your business, if you disapprove perhaps you should tell her you don't want to discuss something that is contentious or offensive to you or whatever but asking how one "deals" with this woman is really paternalistic

you really have no idea the circumstances under which she became pregnant either. The only part I don't understand is how she can afford to have that many abortions. I am not proud of the fact, but I am not going to be ashamed either, to say that I had 2 abortions. They were not cheap.

It is her body and as long as her doctor is aware of the abortions and does not see a long-term health risk for her, it is no one's business.

If they want to choose to be stupid, I think you ought to allow them the dignity and consequences of their own informed choice. It sounds like both of them really do know better, and have chosen to be dumb.

If she has 5 abortions or 500 it's really none of your business. I couldn't agree more. I also have the feeling that if she had had five children instead of five abortions, we wouldn't be hearing this tut-tutting and hand-wringing about "what's to be done with this feckless gorl?"

I personally don't give a good goddamn if some women DO use abortion as birth control, as long as the abortions are performed by a competent doctor in a sterile environment. Other than that, it's none of my goddamned business. If I don't get to tell women how many children they can have at what age on what income, and I sure as hell don't get to tell women to not have children.

The contraceptive choices for women aren't all that good, even now in the 21st century. The Pill can exacerbate migraine and be dangerous for women over 35; IUDs can lead to increased cramping and cause infection; Depo-Provera is associated with loss of libido, weight gain and blood clots; condoms have partner-compliance issues and an unhappy failure rate; allergic reactions to contraceptive foams and jellies... The methods with the fewest systemic side-effects have the highest failure rates, even when used correctly, and the most effective methods have the highest incidence of serious side-effects. Surgical sterilization is a wonderful option, but it can be damn hard for a young woman to find a willing surgeon if the woman in question has no children and doesn't want any ("oh, you'll change your mind" "what if you meet a man who wants children?" - like the woman's own wishes are immaterial compared to those of some imagined man!). For a young woman who doesn't wish to play Mad Scientist with her body, abortion as a birth control method can make more sense than some may wish to admit.

You have a point, Djinn, and at first I felt like - ok, whatever, not my problem. This did occur last year. But in my own head, as a human being I do find myself thinking about it from time to time and trying to understand someone's rationale for not using BC is not a terribly negative thing. My bad for phrasing it as something that I, personally, need to deal with, because it is not.

Pregnancy aside--anyone who is sexually active and not in a monogamous relationship with a partner who is known to be STD free should be using a prophylactic, not just relying on "birth control".


Sorry, I always feel compelled to give these definitions when having this type of discussion--it drives me crazy when people refer to abortion as a "contraceptive". (not that anyone has done that here, to my knowledge)

--a prophylactic is a device that protects against disease and prevents pregnancy (i.e. a condom or female condom)
--a contraceptive is a device or medication that prevents conception/fertilization (i.e. most formulations of the pill, diaphragm, rhythm method if used properly, etc...)
--birth control is any other method of preventing or terminating a pregnancy (i.e. an IUD or abortion)--although some people use it to mean any method of preventing a pregnancy, which is not strictly accurate, because some methods don't prevent pregnancy, just live birth

but she will have been told each time she had an abortion that condoms are essential to protect against STD's and all about various contraceptives. If she really isn't listening to the doctors/nurses and cousellors there's not much chance she'll listen to a co-worker

I think that for a lot of issues (especially emotionally involved ones) a concerned friend "sharing their story" is a lot more likely to convince someone than any number of experts lecturing.

but a judgemental person you work with isn't a "concerned friend"

So I don't know if she is a concerned friend or a judgemental co-worker. We don't know what the relationship is between her and the other women beyond what she posted.

But I was speaking generally when I said that a concerned friend sharing their story may get through to a person better than a medical professional, I wasn't trying to advise her on her situation directly.

you are probably right.

Sometimes people say outrageous things to nosy coworkers when they're asked rude questions. *Especially* if this person quizzes coworkers on their birth control use. If I worked with a person who asked me those kind of questions, I'd be making formal complaints, but hey, that's me.

just so I could have an abortion - just to watch the outrage on their face! :evilgrin:

This kind of nonchalance make us all look bad. How can people be so irresponsible?! They make me sick.

If you want to give them a pamphlet on birth control options, go for it.

But the minute you start being judgmental about them, the minute you are not happy with their sexual habits, you've turned yourself into big brother, and it's offensive.

It's an embryo/fetus, not a person. It's a health/lifestyle choice for them; not a moral issue. It is not the healthiest choice for them, it's a lot of stress on their body (and wallet). Do I think it's a stupid choice? Sure, of course.

If you had a coworker that was seriously overweight, and you saw them eating Burgerthing fries everyday for lunch, would you feel the need to intervene in the same way? Would you post on a message board that you are "NOT happy with the situation"?

When it's phrased that way, can you recognize that statement as being insultingly controlling?