Women's Right to Choose

Nurses General Nursing

Published

I haven't seen this conversation come up on AllNurses, even after Scrubs Mag addressed the erosion of women's right to choose. I apologize if this is too much of a hot-button issue to open up for discussion, but I'm curious as to where folks on here stand when it comes to the increase in states passing restrictive abortion laws, in some cases nearly eliminating it altogether. If the mods are afraid, like I am (especially after seeing how some of the Facebook discussions devolved after Scrubs Mag posted their article there), that this can't remain a civil discussion, please feel free to take it down now. I just feel that this is an important discussion that needs to take place. After Missouri Rep. Barry Hovis spoke of the vast majority of rape being date rape and "consensual rape", Virginia State Sen. Steve Martin (R) stated "A pregnant woman is just a “host” that should not have the right to end her pregnancy", and VP Pence's comments about being "proud to be part of pro-life administration", I'm feeling increasingly disturbed about this country's lack of regard toward women.

Specializes in CTICU.
13 minutes ago, Scrunchkin78 said:

Here is a link to the citation. I tried to find an open source link but no luck or I would have posted it.

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001310207

Thanks, I'm able to find it but from what I'm seeing Sanger only edited these proceedings? This was in 1927 prior to the Holocaust. It seems that this conference was mostly about world population and it's trajectory and the issues that affect global populations, not just Germany. Sanger doesn't seem to have had a leadership role in the conference and I don't see anywhere that she appointed Eugen Fischer to any role. If you can find definitive proof of this association, I'd be happy to look at it but I don't see anything pointing to Sanger as a eugenicist or having any affiliation with the Nazis.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
3 hours ago, Scrunchkin78 said:

You aren’t doing the research because you are afraid of what you will find. How about the majority of abortions in the US are minorities. How about that PP conveniently locates it’s facilities in mostly minority neighborhoods. How about the PP founder,Sanger, was a proud eugenicist and a Nazi sympathizer and openly spoke of weeding out minorities and the disabled through selective abortion. Public Health depts provide contraception, STD care, well woman care , AND maternity care...no abortions. So spare me your self righteousness considering you prop up a racist organization like PP.

Of for *** sake, I'm not even reading past "you aren't doing the research..." because you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said I'm not doing it FOR YOU. Take your sanctimonious bs elsewhere and get out of nursing. How dare you call a woman "not a mother" if she's had an abortion.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
12 minutes ago, sarolarn said:

Thanks, I'm able to find it but from what I'm seeing Sanger only edited these proceedings? This was in 1927 prior to the Holocaust. It seems that this conference was mostly about world population and it's trajectory and the issues that affect global populations, not just Germany. Sanger doesn't seem to have had a leadership role in the conference and I don't see anywhere that she appointed Eugen Fischer to any role. If you can find definitive proof of this association, I'd be happy to look at it but I don't see anything pointing to Sanger as a eugenicist or having any affiliation with the Nazis.

Here is an article that discusses, in part, her organization of this conference. No the conference wasn’t specifically about Germany - it was to discuss birth and population control. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/articles/from_geneva_to_cairo.php

Here is a copy of the program for this conference. Sanger is the lead officer and Eugen Fischer is on the General Council. Google Fischer and you’ll see what a horrible human he was and was not someone worth of respect... especially on population issues.

https://lifedynamics.com/app/uploads/2015/09/1927-10-October.pdf

I edited my above post and included some of her direct writings... some perspective needs to be given about her writings in this time frame. She viewed the addition of children to large families as devastating to women... especially minorities. While there is truth to that - she discusses “birth control.” Birth control as we know it did not exist in the 1920s. The scientific application of the rhythm method wasn’t published until the 1930s and the birth control pill was not invented until the 1960s. Women would have been limited to abstinence, which is impossible (at that time anyway) in marriage and use of pessary stones and sponge (if available) with vinegar and abortion. Her writings convey a sense of superiority.... compassion as one would be compassionate towards and animal versus a human. I believe that SHE believed her motives were for good.... AND some good did come from her research with the development of the birth control pill. However, I think she had a pretty dim vision of humanity and the value of life.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
3 minutes ago, Orion81RN said:

Of for *** sake, I'm not even reading past "you aren't doing the research..." because you clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said I'm not doing it FOR YOU. Take your sanctimonious bs elsewhere and get out of nursing. How dare you call a woman "not a mother" if she's had an abortion.

Technically she’s not. Conceiving doesn’t make a woman a mother... any creature on earth can reproduce. Mothering is the process of raising a child, not conceiving one. Besides... if a woman has an abortion she doesn’t WANT to be a mother, right? ...hence the reason for the abortion.... so what’s the problem? Don’t answer that, I am really not interested in this discussion because it’s obvious it’s not going anywhere productive for you or me. Have a pleasant evening.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CTICU.
26 minutes ago, Scrunchkin78 said:

Here is an article that discusses, in part, her organization of this conference. No the conference wasn’t specifically about Germany - it was to discuss birth and population control. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/articles/from_geneva_to_cairo.php

Here is a copy of the program for this conference. Sanger is the lead officer and Eugen Fischer is on the General Council. Google Fischer and you’ll see what a horrible human he was and was not someone worth of respect... especially on population issues.

https://lifedynamics.com/app/uploads/2015/09/1927-10-October.pdf

I edited my above post and included some of her direct writings... some perspective needs to be given about her writings in this time frame. She viewed the addition of children to large families as devastating to women... especially minorities. While there is truth to that - she discusses “birth control.” Birth control as we know it did not exist in the 1920s. The scientific application of the rhythm method wasn’t published until the 1930s and the birth control pill was not invented until the 1960s. Women would have been limited to abstinence, which is impossible (at that time anyway) in marriage and use of pessary stones and sponge (if available) with vinegar and abortion. Her writings convey a sense of superiority.... compassion as one would be compassionate towards and animal versus a human. I believe that SHE believed her motives were for good.... AND some good did come from her research with the development of the birth control pill. However, I think she had a pretty dim vision of humanity and the value of life.

This is a straw man argument, you’ve stated in your post that you think her writings seem patronizing and that you think she had a dim vision of humanity, and this is opinion based. No one will argue about how sh***y Eugen Fischer was. The conference appears to have been about population growth, disease, poverty, etc- same thing that we discuss now with population growth.

Regardless of Sanger, this post has gone off topic- you don’t have to support abortion, you can be religious, you can have 15 kids or no kids, it doesn’t matter. Pregnant people should have a say in what happens to their body.

My body, my choice.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Mental Health, Gerontology, Palliative.
On 5/23/2019 at 9:31 AM, catladyx8 said:

I guess I am in the minority here. I've never had children, nor do I want any, but personally I would not choose to have an abortion. I know that there are some terrible things that happen in the world where pregnancy may be an end result, but I believe that abortion is in fact, killing a child. Jer. 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you..."

I am also the same, I do not want to have children. On the very small chance if I ever ended up with an unplanned pregnancy I would choose to carry the child to term. I have some amazing friends who cant have kids and would make amamzing parents.

Now for the qualifier. That is totally my choice based on what I believe is right for me

I have no right what so ever to insist that the way I would choose to address the situation of an unplanned pregnancy is the correct way that all women with an unplanned pregnancy should follow.

No one has the right to have control over another womans uterus

The rights of a potential human being should not trump the rights of an existing human being

7
Up Vote Up Vote ×
On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 5:47 PM, Scrunchkin78 said:

Quote the book and verse that says abortions are okay in the Bible....

As for what the Bible REALLY thinks about abortion...go to Exodus “Thou shalt not kill”.

no proscription does not mean there is pro, but there is, when the woman is suspected of adultery, it is suggested. and thou shalt not kill is more properly translated as thou shalt not murder. and your god, or anyone else's has no place OUR laws.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
14 hours ago, Scrunchkin78 said:

I am totally good with sex ed - it certainly doesn't have to be the sole domain of PP. Sex ed and contraception are great because they help prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. And, No we can't agree because abortion should not be used as a contraceptive. Killing a baby for convenience is NOT okay. Health care reasons are entirely different and definitely belong between a doctor and the woman. I am all for saving the life of the mother, even if it is a mental health issue. I am also in favor of terminating pregnancies where the baby is or will be stillborn. There is no reason in our advanced society that we should need abortions just to have them. Killing healthy life is not moral.

IF, you actually graduated nursing school/college, you KNOW there is no baby involved in abortion. the term is used to hype the uneducated.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
14 hours ago, Scrunchkin78 said:

And morality is missing you. Asking planned parenthood to do their "supposed" job is a pretty modern and reasonable request. They "say" they provide healthcare - if they aren't teaching about contraception before they scrape the baby out of the egg donors uterus then they aren't doing their jobs and are undeserving of their funding.

they are not "funded" in the way that word is ordinarily used. except for a small yearly grant. otherwise the money from the feds is for non abortion services provided, just like other providers are recompensed

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
9 hours ago, Scrunchkin78 said:

A “mother” doesn’t kill her baby. And if it’s just a “clump of cells” the egg had to come from somewhere. If sperm donor can be applied to deadbeat dads then egg donor is perfectly appropriate for women who kill their babies out of selfishness and convenience.

again, no baby involved.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
9 hours ago, Scrunchkin78 said:

You aren’t doing the research because you are afraid of what you will find. How about the majority of abortions in the US are minorities. How about that PP conveniently locates it’s facilities in mostly minority neighborhoods. How about the PP founder,Sanger, was a proud eugenicist and a Nazi sympathizer and openly spoke of weeding out minorities and the disabled through selective abortion. Public Health depts provide contraception, STD care, well woman care , AND maternity care...no abortions. So spare me your self righteousness considering you prop up a racist organization like PP.

you have been reported for your lying.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
9 hours ago, Persephone Paige said:

Abortions should be like anything else, available at a price. Except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother, it should be paid for by the person who desires it. If the woman can't afford to pay for it, track the man down and extract the fee from him. If he claims it's not his, too bad. That'll make him think twice before engaging in unprotected sex.

I wouldn't have an abortion. For me, life begins at conception and the times I engaged in unprotected sex with my spouse, I was trying to conceive.

Keep abortion legal, keep it for profit. No government funding... Have the henchmen be known, have the public know they are not paying for something they don't believe in. No secrets, accountability... Arrest people who prevent entry into the clinics. If they want to protest, which is their right, they'll be arrested if the do it on private property. Protest at the church, etc...

the feds do not pay for elective abortion, some states contribute. otherwise they are paid for by the client or donations.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment