# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Why Is It Okay To Hate Openly Gay People?

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

271 posts

- Page 10 of 11
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

###

- Quote

Post by Crissa » Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:37 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote:The number of patients who kill themselves after sex reassignment therapy is as high as 18% in some studies. Requests for reversals are common. And a majority of people who undergo surgery report no change in their psychological well being. And unfortunately, there aren't any good controlled studies on these procedures, because the numbers of patients are very low and a lot of the groups doing the procedures are shady as hell.

The reason they're shady is because Christian hospitals refuse to acknowledge that transsexualism exists.
There is not a high number of reversals. Suicide among pre-op is higher than post-op. Much higher.
Yes, there are poor studies for post-operative transsexuals. The reason for this? They get on with their lives. No, it doesn't 'magically' cure that they aren't the physical sex that their brains want them to be.
But there's no good studies on the suicide rate of women who are incapable of reproduction, either. No good studies on the stress on men or women with injuries or disabilities in their primary or secondary sexual characteristics.
So don't FUCKING CALL IT MUTILATION until you come armed with some baseline studies.
You're basically giving a psychiatrically ill person the choice between not living the life they want to live and not living the life they want to live.
That's a recipe for suicide, not treatment.
-Crissa
PS: Is it acceptable to have the 'opinion' of white supremacy? No fucking way, PR, don't even try that. It may be an opinion, but some opinions are not acceptable.
Last edited by Crissa on Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

RiotGearEpsilon
  Knight
  Posts: 469
  Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:39 am
  Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts

###

- Quote

Post by RiotGearEpsilon » Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:46 pm

I prefer the term 'grointwiddling'.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:00 pm

No Crissa, you're totally full of shit here. Christian hospitals don't have fuck all to do with a lack of controlled studies into the results of sexual reassignment surgery.
The fact is that sex reassignment surgery is a fringe procedure, and the studies into its efficacy are by and large performed by the same for-profit clinics that do the procedures. What studies exist are generally indistinguishable from testimonials.
When we actually did major studies with controls on sexual reassignment surgery performed on intersexed children, we found that suicide rates went up. By a lot. And that's why sexual reassignment surgery is a fringe procedure that I strongly recommend against. People do it anyway, and some people even feel better or more like themselves for having done so. And I regard this as absolutely no different from the people who put plugs in their earlobes or hoops through their nose or pins through their neck skin. Medically not advisable, but well within an individual's rights to modify their own body to conform to their self image.
But yes, while the word "mutilation" is pretty insensitive, and certainly a charged word - it's not inaccurate. Mutilation is still a word, and it still means things, and phalloplasty and mastectomy both completely qualify under that word's actual definition. You can say people are jerks for using that word, but you're just factually incorrect if you claim they are wrong.
Don't conflate your support of people's individual rights to express themselves and be true to their own sexuality and self image with actual medical facts. Because chopping your penis off is still a painful and dangerous piece of entirely elective surgery. That hasn't changed just because someone has a reason to do it.
-Username17
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:04 pm

1) Crissa, Christians try to pretend abortion doesn't exist too, but it's still one of the safer medical procedures.
Obviously the issue isn't just Christian hate, it might be something like "lots more people want abortions than want sex change."
2)

> Cat wrote:Allies do not get to have "opinions" on people that differ from the facts or from their lived experiences. You can support people, but when you start dictating how things "really" are you can just get the fuck out.

Actually, we do. They are called facts. If someone has a fact like "sex change surgery is mutilation" that is a fact that is in direct contradiction of your lived experience, it is your lived experience that is wrong, and this is precisely my point.
You personally wanted to have a sex change surgery, and I personally wanted to get a tattoo. Those are both mutilations regardless of how you feel about yourself afterword.
Believe it or not, people who say "your sex change is exactly like my tattoo, a deformation of your body to make it more appealing to yourself, and one that we are totally allowed to choose for ourselves" are yes, people you do fucking want in your corner, because they are nice damn people and will help you not get arrested and executed when the fascists take over.
3)

> Cat wrote:People who say "don't get surgery, just deal with who you were born as!" are not counseling me to wait, they are counseling me to do nothing. And doing nothing at best ends in transitioning later in life.

Actually, lots of people just don't get surgery and live their lives just fine. It doesn't lead to at best transitioning later in life, because the actual fact is that the human mind can just grin and bear a large amount of shit.
We will never get any accurate information on the success rate of the grin and bear it system, because of course, those people don't report. But it does exist. It's actually the preferred system for dealing with most issues. You may personally think that it doesn't work for transgender feelings, and that may even be true in your case, but it's absolutely false in general, because lots of people just accept all sorts of shit on a regular basis.
4) Fuck you PR. All opinions are not equal, some of them are based on fact, and some of them are not. Some of them create arbitrary distinctions based on their own personal feelings and attempt to force those feelings on others and some do not.
Last edited by Kaelik on Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Psychic Robot
  Prince
  Posts: 4607
  Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Psychic Robot » Mon Apr 19, 2010 11:37 pm

EDIT: This is not an argument that I actually care enough about to have.
Last edited by Psychic Robot on Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

> Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.

> Ant wrote:

> > Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?

> You do not seem to do anything.

Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:26 am

> Psychic Robot wrote:EDIT: This is not an argument that I actually care enough about to have.

Can you please not care on another forum like you promised instead of concern trolling us?

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

###

- Quote

Post by Crissa » Tue Apr 20, 2010 1:42 am

Actually, they do, Frank. Look up the preeminent gender clinic in the 70s in the US. Look them up today. Look up what happened to the controlling interest on their board.
Look up the employment/hospital association of the top five sex reassignment surgeons in the US. Note each change in hospital association, and note the change in ownership in their hospitals. Note which ones haven't changed, and what's different about the hospital they operated at.
Look up teaching hospitals and their policies in the US. If you can, also look up historical information of their class lists.
Basically, anything that does not conform to Baptist/Catholic teachings about gender have been slowly eradicated from medical care and teaching at US hospitals. Abortion, gender, etc.
Transsexualism is no longer treated at any of the large teaching hospitals. They will tell you it is because of negative patient response - but if you look at their studies, you'll find that in the majority of the cases, what changed was top-down, not evidence from the bottom up.
Even abortion is getting hedged out. Most hospitals don't provide it. Most teaching hospitals don't teach it.
Is there some study I don't know about causing the reduction in instruction?
Or are we going to have an argument here that Frank will lose?
-Crissa
Top

Vebyast
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 801
  Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:44 am

###

- Quote

Post by Vebyast » Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:15 am

> Crissa wrote:Even abortion is getting hedged out. Most hospitals don't provide it. Most teaching hospitals don't teach it.

I'm not getting involved in this debate (other than to say that I honestly don't give a crap about what sex, gender, or combination or lack thereof that you prefer, either for yourself or for your significant other(s)), but the links you guys are posting make me cry inside.

> Crissa's Link wrote:In some schools, abortion training is prohibited by the board of directors and faculty members. In some cases, students opposed to the training have been able to change the curriculum. UAB, at one point, had a one-hour lecture on abortion as part of the standard preclinical curriculum, Pyle says, but a handful of students expressed their opposition, and the school opted to remove the lecture rather than spark controversy.

Stuff like this is why I'm hoping I can either get myself uploaded or onto a shuttle to Mars before scientific denialism pounds humanity back into the stone age.

> DSMatticus wrote:There are two things you can learn from the Gaming Den:
> 1) Good design practices.
> 2) How to be a zookeeper for hyper-intelligent shit-flinging apes.

Top

mean_liar
  Duke
  Posts: 2187
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Boston

###

- Quote

Post by mean_liar » Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:38 am

> Crissa wrote:Or are we going to have an argument here that Frank will lose?

Frank loses arguments, but a series of statements without links isn't going to get it done.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:55 am

> mean_liar wrote:Frank loses arguments, but a series of statements without links isn't going to get it done.

Crissa is allergic to backing up her assertions.
Ironically, all she's proven is that Christian hate has nothing to do with it, because the medical procedure we have the most information on, Abortion, is undergoing the same squeeze as gender reassignment that we have basically no information on.
Because her only damn link was about abortion, and everything else was just her talking out the ass and demanding we believe her because she is "well read."
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:55 am

> Or are we going to have an argument here that Frank will lose?
> -Crissa

Nope, you're about to get your ass kicked to next Sunday. Because as usual, you don't provide any links and we have to take your word for it. Again.
We are not doing your fucking research for you. Pony up the links you are claiming, because every time you have done so it turned out the links were saying something else, or were flat-out wrong to say what they did.
Worse, all you're arguing is that Catholic/Baptist Hospitals are getting rid of abortions and gender education. Except that every hospital in the country hasn't been taken over by the Catholics/Baptists. If a Catholic hospital doesn't want to offer transgendered surgery, it's their right. There are gonna be other clinics who will offer it anyway.
Particularly when the transgendered clinics are offering outright falsehoods with their offerings. Undergoing the current procedure will not make a man into a woman. It may just make you look like one, but biologically you still are not. It doesn't change your bloody chromosomes or all of the many, many other biological differences between men and women other than their damn plumbing.
Religious nuts do some crazy things. But just because the religious people say it's bad, doesn't mean it's false. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" came from the Bible too after all.
Moreover I would argue that there are people who are just as stupidly zealous on the left. Just because some liberal says transgendered people are cool, doesn't make the procedure any safer or saner.
Also, stop being a mysgonist bitch to Kaelik. There are PLENTY of gender-nuts teaching sociology, even outside the US. Calling Kaelik a racist/anti-women for that is simply mean-spirited and stupid.
When we call you a bitch and an idiot, it's not a dig against women. It's a dig against you.
Lago->
Want everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbaya? You need to make them understand something as simple as his:
"People are not simple. They cannot be described with words like "The elves are a lithe, pointy-eared people who excel in poverty"".
But most people don't have the fucking common sense to understand this. Hence the arguments.
Last edited by Zinegata on Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:22 am

> Vebyast wrote:Stuff like this is why I'm hoping I can either get myself uploaded or onto a shuttle to Mars before scientific denialism pounds humanity back into the stone age.

Honestly, the article really sounds like it was arguing horseshit - "There aren't enough abortion clinics! We should have more and doctors shouldn't have the right to say no to it!".
What, more abortions are a good thing?
This is why I like Hillary Clinton's Pro-Choice stance. It's actually sane and even people who have moral discomforts with abortion can get behind it.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:26 am

> Zinegata wrote:What, more abortions are a good thing?

Yes, more abortions is a good thing.
Top

Cynic
  Prince
  Posts: 2776
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Cynic » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:27 am

Zinegata: it isn't whether more of the act is good or bad. it is whether the allowing more acts is good or bad. and I'd say it is good.

> Ancient History wrote:We were working on Street Magic, and Frank asked me if a houngan had run over my dog.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:29 am

> Kaelik wrote:

> > Zinegata wrote:What, more abortions are a good thing?

> Yes, more abortions is a good thing.

WHHHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYY?
And if you're gonna argue "It helps keep population down" or "It minimizes the number of stupid people in the world", one could use gas chambers instead you know .
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:38 am

> Cynic wrote:Zinegata: it isn't whether more of the act is good or bad. it is whether the allowing more acts is good or bad. and I'd say it is good.

Here's the thing though. According to the law, it's allowed. Period. The article is basically just saying more people should have access to it... and people who don't want to be trained to do abortions should be forced to undergo it anyway.
"Allowing" it is not the same as encouraging it. Smoking is allowed by law, but the government doesn't mandate that cigarette companies can put up a sales stand on every street corner to make it more available to everyone.
I like Clinton's Pro-Choice view - which is that while abortion IS the right of the woman, it should always be considered the last choice. Because not making it the last choice ignores the very real moral and ethical questions over the whole issue. "The rights of an unborn human being" is a very real issue for a lot of people, and in many countries it actually does trump the rights of the woman.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:46 am

> Zinegata wrote:

> > Kaelik wrote:

> > > Zinegata wrote:What, more abortions are a good thing?

> > Yes, more abortions is a good thing.

> WHHHHHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYY?
> And if you're gonna argue "It helps keep population down" or "It minimizes the number of stupid people in the world", one could use gas chambers instead you know .

Because stupid people are bad. Because people in general are bad. Because anything that undermines the role of women as servants is good. Because abortion is a voluntary and therefore self selective method of getting rid of stupid people, and so is not subject to abuse like gas chambers would be. Because every time a fetus is aborted, people become less attached to false morality imposed on them by various stupid sources who valued that fetus for reasons even more stupid than the reason people normally value them. Because idiots like you think that abortion should be avoided because other idiots think that fetus has any fucking worth at all, and the only way you'll learn is through constant unceasing abortions.
Top

Cynic
  Prince
  Posts: 2776
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Cynic » Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:49 am

no, I din't say allowing abortion period. I said allowing more. Which is slightly different.
The government does deny the cigarette companies from putting up a sales stand on every corner and also denies advertisements.
That's again the difference.
But the issue here is American legislature (based on Clinton's view during her presidential run) rather than other countries.
If you use Clinton's view as a new standard for law, you are mandating lesser abortions as it is untenable to decide how abortion should be the last choice. it

> Ancient History wrote:We were working on Street Magic, and Frank asked me if a houngan had run over my dog.

Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:36 am

> Cynic wrote:If you use Clinton's view as a new standard for law, you are mandating lesser abortions as it is untenable to decide how abortion should be the last choice. it

It cuts off. And I don't really get what you're saying at how it's "untenable".
Do you mean to say it's untenable to have very aggressive contraception and abstinence programs to prevent unplanned pregnancies, even if abortion remains an option?
Do you mean to say it's untenable to have "carry to term & offer for adoption" options alongside of abortion, to give couples (including same-sex ones) who can't have kids the opportunity to have children?
I don't. The article is stupid because it thinks the problem is that there aren't enough abortions clinics and that doctors shouldn't have moral objections to learning abortion as a medical procedure. When you could instead drastically lower the number of abortions by the above methods.
In fact, one key point mentioned in the article is that it wants abortion training to go up to the same level as the 70s. Because while training has gone up compared to the 80s, it's still not as high as when it was starting out. That to me is promoting abortion for its own sake, when there might be other factors (i.e. Sex Ed, Adoption) that makes abortions unnecessary and therefore less in demand.
Last edited by Zinegata on Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:40 am

> Kaelik wrote:Because abortion is a voluntary and therefore self selective method of getting rid of stupid people, and so is not subject to abuse like gas chambers would be.

You could institute an IQ test. Those who fail get sent to the gas chambers.
Gas Chambers need not be abuseable or arbitrary. With a proper sytem in place it can be used to genocide stupid people.
Top

TavishArtair
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 593
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by TavishArtair » Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:51 am

It is actually pretty well-known that cielingcat's claim regarding doing nothing is not actually that outlandish, although it is a false absolute. To be precise, as time goes by, people who experience gender dysphoria generally feel worse and worse, resulting in a mounting desire to transition. This is a commonly reported phenomenon.
God of Awesome's point on mutilation is more or less correct. You are completely accurate, Kaelik, in that trans people totally want the support of those who are also supportive of extreme body modification, and yes on some level transition is very similar, but it's really best to avoid the word. Neither the person who modifies their body for the sake of art nor the person who modifies their body due to gender dysphoria conceive of it as having the same connotations as mutilation, and while it is good to keep in mind the amount of what is essentially damage you are inflicting on your body, it's... unnecessary in most conversations.
Last edited by TavishArtair on Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:54 am

Of course more abortions are a good thing, to a point. When there are more abortions, it means that women have more control over their own reproduction. This means that there are less unwanted pregnancies, which in turn raises standards of living, lowers crime, keeps families together, and has people's self assessment of their own happiness increase.
Now with greater access to information and reproductive control, women have less surgical abortions and more denied implantations. And that's easier and safer for people. Ironically, the best information and reproductive control tends to come from the same people who do surgical abortions - so actually you get lower rates of surgical abortion and a happier populace when you have abortion freely available like in the Netherlands than when you have abortion illegalized and hidden away like the Philippines.
But yes, assuming you have goals that include:

- The health and wellbeing of women.
- Lowering violent crime.
- Reducing strain on government orphanages.
- Increasing life expectancy.
- Reducing the prevalence of diseases.
- Reducing the number of botched surgical abortion procedures.

...then you'd want to have surgical abortion on-demand and have women everywhere be able to go to reproductive clinics at any time for any or no reason at all and get consultations or procedures freely. The movement to marginalize abortion care in the United States is one of the reasons that our infant mortality rate is more than twice that of Sweden.
But all of that is because we actually have a lot of data on abortions. Because whether it's legal like Norway or illegal like Romania, people still do it. And whether there are trained professionals like in the United Kingdom or not like in the Republic of Ireland, people still do it. So we can actually get a lot of data on how the procedures affect society, and what procedures have the better success rates and so on and so forth.
Sexual Reassignment Surgery does not work like that. It pretty much requires going to a doctor to do, because it's major and invasive plastic surgery. And no, we don't have good data on how effective it is. In part because it's incredibly rare. In other part because every medical organization that is involved at all has a horse in the race.
We are pretty sure transsexuals kill themselves fairly frequently. Pre-op and post-op transsexuals kill themselves a substantial amount of the time. But... how substantial? We don't really know, because there isn't a reliable "transsexuality test." Transsexuals look and smell exactly like the rest of the population, because they are still normal humans. Our only test is to ask people if they are transsexuals, and most of them lie. The high end of studies on transsexuality suicide comes out at 30%. That's a big number, but it was also attained by totaling up the number of people who killed themselves and dividing it by the percentage of people in the whole population who say that they are trans when asked - which since a majority of trans people are closeted means that number is total bullshit.
How often do post-op transsexuals kill themselves? We don't know. There is no way for us to know, because there isn't a master list anywhere of all the post-op transsexuals. Studies that followup on procedures are all voluntary compliance. Getting responses from even 80% of the people would be a frickin dream come true. So seriously, how would you know that suicide rates are lower in post-op transsexuals? Because all the people who came back to respond to questions about their condition by the clinic that performed their operation were still alive? Talk about selection bias!
-Username17
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

###

- Quote

Post by Crissa » Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:15 am

Did Zinegata and Kaelik even read the article I linked to?
The article wasn't about 'there are less abortions' or 'there isn't a demand for abortions' it was 'abortion is being hedged out in education by those opposed (christian nutters)'. Which doesn't disprove my point about christian nutters.
Frank knows the selection bias is worse for the negatives than for the positives - they know which ones weren't happy because they sued them or came back. And then the statistic he's probably quoting (from an Australian source) compared the handful of negatives they knew with a handful of people who responded positively.
We actually would have studies of efficaciousness of treatment if transsexuals were not treated poorly by the medical establishment. From recording pre-operatives (and some post operatives) as the wrong gender while hospitalized or at death, to allowing ostracized family to reverse gender transition... The amount of disrespect is horrible.
So why would you encourage disrespect? Using negative words reduces the positive result in treatments. Search 'negative framing' + patient outcomes.
-Crissa
Last thing here: The reason ceilingcat's views are important is not because her 'experience is wrong': It's because the vast majority of people cannot even imagine the feelings she has.
Last edited by Crissa on Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top

Zinegata
  Prince
  Posts: 4071
  Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:33 am

###

- Quote

Post by Zinegata » Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:24 am

> Crissa wrote:Did Zinegata and Kaelik even read the article I linked to?
> The article wasn't about 'there are less abortions' or 'there isn't a demand for abortions' it was 'abortion is being hedged out in education by those opposed (christian nutters)'. Which doesn't disprove my point about christian nutters.

I never said there were less abortions. I'd *like* there to be less abortions by instituting aggressive meaures like contraceptives to lower the number of unwanted pregnancies, but I didn't say the article said that. I said the article was stupid for this:
It's whining about how there's less training available:

> Louisa Pyle, immediate past president of Medical Students for Choice (MS4C) and a third-year in an M.D./Ph.D. program at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), believes that in the last five years, there’s been more access to abortion training than there was in the early to late 1990s, but there’s still less compared to the early 1970s.

And like I said, they don't seem to realize that maybe there's really not that huge of a demand left for training, because there now exists a core of medical professionals capable of doing it. As the article said:

> As she notes, today’s “graying” providers had experience in OB wards that saw as many cases of incomplete abortion and sepsis as births, “so the need for appropriate, physician-trained abortion providers [after Roe v. Wade] was incredibly clear to them.” Training dropped off in the 1990s, which Pyle attributes partially to complacency: As the memory of back-alley abortions faded, a whole generation of people, including medical students, has never seen what happens when abortion is forced underground.

Why would a whole generation of people not see back-alley abortions? Because it's not really being done in back alleys anymore due to the presence of abortion clinics.
Frank points out the saner part of the article - which is that by making abortions more freely available, you run a lower risk of hidden abortions with higher health risks.
Now, if the number of "back alley" abortions is rising nationwide - then sure, it's smart to expand training again. But the article isn't saying that. It isn't citing a rise in back alley abortions. It's quoting testimonials from peple who are saying "There are some stupid institutions that won't teach abortion!"
To which I'm tempted to say "Duh, those are CATHOLIC institutions". What do you expect? There are OTHER institutios mentioned in the same article that teach abortion freely. Why not go to them instead?
I don't think a doctor who wants to regularly practice abortion would go to a Catholic institution in the first place. Nor would a woman who'd want an abortion go there. And it's really their choice on the matter. Unless you want to start banning "Catholic" institutions of all types.
In short, I don't see the need to expand abortion training to people who don't want to practice it. There seems to be enough clinics given that the article admits that there's a whole generation who hadn't seen any backroom abortions.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:36 am

The number of back alley abortions is rising, especially in repressive regimes like Utah. But yeah, the article doesn't make that terribly clear or make a good argument about why that is.
Operation Rescue is a terrorist organization, and their "successes" have resulted in tangible loss of life and quality of life in the United States.
-Username17
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

271 posts

- Page 10 of 11
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS