• commentary
  • TUESDAY JULY 31 2007 4:00 PM

Do You Want Kids? Do You Want to Have the Option?

Submitted by Bitch_PhD

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: reproductive rights, sterilization, race, racism



I assume that by now folks have heard about this article about the difficulties 20-ish women have convincing docs to give them tubal ligations. Any young woman who has decided she does not want to have kids, and has tried to find a doc to perform a ligation, knows what I'm talking about; a friend of mine recently had herself "spayed" (her words) at the age of 40 because she was finally old enough that docs decided she wasn't likely to regret her decision. She and I kind of joked, wryly, about what really is the point at this age--I'm thinking of giving a second kid one more try and who knows if it'll even happen, and I'm only about six months younger than she is.

On the other hand. It's worth remembering, if you're one of the white, college educated, independent, ambitious young women who does not want kids, that there are other women--younger, less educated, darker skinned, less comfortably middle class, less physically abled, less socially and culturally central--for whom the right not to be sterilized is still an issue. Surely some of you remember C.R.A.C.K. (aka "Project Prevention"), the organization that pays women with addiction problems to undergo permanent sterilization. Their website talks about "how we help the children," but as a number of feminist groups and social justice advocates have been pointing out for years, this approach is not only indifferent to the problems of the women it bribes, it doesn't much help any kids they already have. You don't have to be indifferent to the problems of drug use during pregnancy to recognize that media coverage and popular perception of the problems is hysterically exaggerated and more focused on blaming poor mothers--and dismissing their children--than actually addressing the problems of addiction, poverty, and prenatal care.

They're separate issues, but they both boil down to the same thing: "helping" women by deciding what they need *for* them.

Bitch_PhD thinks none of us can genuinely be said to "choose" freely as long as some choices aren't available to everyone.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 14

Next

Comments
theconservative

theconservative

Spring, TX
October 2004

JUL 31, 2007 06:45 PM

BurningKrome said:

TheCoolerKing said:
It was optional though, right? With the exception of the rogue hospital? These women were given a choice.

Less crack-addicted babies is bad, how? Isn't the drugged-out mother, minority or otherwise, just as much to blame for taking money as the person offering? Or does the act of being a drugged-up mess absolve one of not only all kid-related responsibilites but financial ones as well?

Too many people/kids and people/kids having babies for no good reason. Anyone willing to take money to stop procreating should be given the operation, a medal and a lollipop.


Hmm...where to start, where to start....

OK. First. Drug addiction is 99% biochemical, with more and more evidence mounting to show powerful genetic predisposition. You may be able to take a ridiculously self-righteous, overly-moralistic stance about a person who is dumb enough to take crack the first time...but, pretty much after that, the logic of , "Those damn crack whores living in a box in the alley doing tricks for drugs choose be there! That's the life they want! The whiners who say they can't keep clean are just lazy assed, whiney, weaklings who can't get a grip!" is kind of full of shit.

Kudos to those who can overcome the cravings, and chemicals withdrawals, and hallucinations, and personality changes...but it is pretty much the equivalent of getting clean from oxygen.

Idea! Try this. Everyday, hold your breath until you pass out. Just once a day...every day. The first day you either fail to successfully make yourself pass out (even when you try) - or decide you just don't have the strength today - you're a lazy assed, whiney weakling.

Second, performing a permanent procedure on someone when it would be just as effective to implant a 6 month depro provera release borders on Nazi fascism.

Third, performing any medical procedure on someone who may, due to their drug addiction and current drug induced mind state, be incapable of understanding and actually consenting to the procedure would lose in ANY malpractice suit should anyone give enough of a shit about these women to sue someone.

Fourth - reiterating that it doesn't do shit for the kids they already have....seems like false-sincerity on the part of the organization.

Fifth - assuming they DO have the "personal integrity" and "strength" to get clean, wouldn't that earn them the right to have a child and, in fact, wouldn't that be the kind of "strength" one might want encouraged in the gene pool.

Should we continue....?



this is alternately the dumbest and smartest thing i've ever read.

Untimely

Untimely

Chicago, IL
January 2007

JUL 31, 2007 06:46 PM

thunderbunny said:

TheCoolerKing said:

Less crack-addicted babies is bad, how?



Fewer, not less.

Your grammar pal,

tbunny



Hey, maybe he meant that they would be less addicted to crack.

Priest_

Priest_

USA
January 2007

JUL 31, 2007 06:47 PM

TheCoolerKing said:
It was optional though, right? With the exception of the rogue hospital? These women were given a choice.

Less crack-addicted babies is bad, how? Isn't the drugged-out mother, minority or otherwise, just as much to blame for taking money as the person offering? Or does the act of being a drugged-up mess absolve one of not only all kid-related responsibilites but financial ones as well?

Too many people/kids and people/kids having babies for no good reason. Anyone willing to take money to stop procreating should be given the operation, a medal and a lollipop.



+1

Vanessa

Vanessa

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

JUL 31, 2007 06:49 PM

BurningKrome said:

TheCoolerKing said:
It was optional though, right? With the exception of the rogue hospital? These women were given a choice.

Less crack-addicted babies is bad, how? Isn't the drugged-out mother, minority or otherwise, just as much to blame for taking money as the person offering? Or does the act of being a drugged-up mess absolve one of not only all kid-related responsibilites but financial ones as well?

Too many people/kids and people/kids having babies for no good reason. Anyone willing to take money to stop procreating should be given the operation, a medal and a lollipop.


Hmm...where to start, where to start....

OK. First. Drug addiction is 99% biochemical, with more and more evidence mounting to show powerful genetic predisposition. You may be able to take a ridiculously self-righteous, overly-moralistic stance about a person who is dumb enough to take crack the first time...but, pretty much after that, the logic of , "Those damn crack whores living in a box in the alley doing tricks for drugs choose be there! That's the life they want! The whiners who say they can't keep clean are just lazy assed, whiney, weaklings who can't get a grip!" is kind of full of shit.

Kudos to those who can overcome the cravings, and chemicals withdrawals, and hallucinations, and personality changes...but it is pretty much the equivalent of getting clean from oxygen.

Idea! Try this. Everyday, hold your breath until you pass out. Just once a day...every day. The first day you either fail to successfully make yourself pass out (even when you try) - or decide you just don't have the strength today - you're a lazy assed, whiney weakling.

Second, performing a permanent procedure on someone when it would be just as effective to implant a 6 month depro provera release borders on Nazi fascism.

Third, performing any medical procedure on someone who may, due to their drug addiction and current drug induced mind state, be incapable of understanding and actually consenting to the procedure would lose in ANY malpractice suit should anyone give enough of a shit about these women to sue someone.

Fourth - reiterating that it doesn't do shit for the kids they already have....seems like false-sincerity on the part of the organization.

Fifth - assuming they DO have the "personal integrity" and "strength" to get clean, wouldn't that earn them the right to have a child and, in fact, wouldn't that be the kind of "strength" one might want encouraged in the gene pool.

Should we continue....?



Quite good points in this post, sir.
But that one (the bold one...obviously... )I have to say yes, I sure do drugs but if I was to get a tubal ligation, I would do it of my own accord.
I CANT use the depo porvera or any other kind of birth controlbecause it turns me into a monster who bleeds continuously whilst on it and who has crippling migraines every day.
So I don't have that option for birth control.
I would much rather just rather get "fixed".
And whether I'm high off my ass or not, that's my decision.
(note:I am currently sobertongue)

Rafi

Rafi

Santa Monica, CA
January 2003

JUL 31, 2007 06:51 PM

TheGringo said:
How is it doing harm if the person chooses the surgery? I believe it would do more harm if a person who didn't want kids became pregnant or got someone pregnant.



That's true under normal circumstances but the question is whether a woman with a serious drug addiction, and possibly under the influence of a psychoactive substance at the time, is enough of a freely acting agent to make a medical decision with lifelong, irreversible implications - especially when what amounts to a bribe enters the equations.

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

JUL 31, 2007 06:53 PM

For the record, I would be a terrible parent and despise the vast majority of children. The ones I notice because their parents bring them into quiet environments and then do nothing to keep them from running around wreaking havoc and/or shrieking at the top of their lungs, or just conversing at the top of their lungs. And so on. (I understand that this is not necessarily easy to accomplish, and that parents can't always (or even often, for some) leave their kids behind while they go do things. And I do sympathize. But it doesn't make them any less irritating. And it absolutely cements my desire never to have to deal with things like that myself.)

So no, I don't want kids. And I definitely don't want the option. But I haven't had a vasectomy because there's no point spending on money on having someone hack at my genitalia with sharp objects (hack is perhaps a strong word) when there's no real possibility of my having sex.

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

JUL 31, 2007 07:19 PM

Rafi said:

TheGringo said:
How is it doing harm if the person chooses the surgery? I believe it would do more harm if a person who didn't want kids became pregnant or got someone pregnant.


That's true under normal circumstances but the question is whether a woman with a serious drug addiction, and possibly under the influence of a psychoactive substance at the time, is enough of a freely acting agent to make a medical decision with lifelong, irreversible implications - especially when what amounts to a bribe enters the equations.


I guess I was assuming that the women in question weren't coming into the offices and doing ___________ <their drug of choice here> while they were filling out forms.

I don't know about you...but any time that I've been doing alcohol or drugs....I sure as fuck am not motivated enough to go anyplace that doesn't offer cool people to hang out with and pretty lights. An office would be the last place I'd be inclined to visit under those circumstances.

If they did change their minds later - they could always adopt. smile

BurningKrome

BurningKrome

San Jose, CA
April 2005

JUL 31, 2007 07:21 PM

Vanessa said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

BurningKrome said:

TheCoolerKing said:
It was optional though, right? With the exception of the rogue hospital? These women were given a choice.

Less crack-addicted babies is bad, how? Isn't the drugged-out mother, minority or otherwise, just as much to blame for taking money as the person offering? Or does the act of being a drugged-up mess absolve one of not only all kid-related responsibilites but financial ones as well?

Too many people/kids and people/kids having babies for no good reason. Anyone willing to take money to stop procreating should be given the operation, a medal and a lollipop.


Hmm...where to start, where to start....

OK. First. Drug addiction is 99% biochemical, with more and more evidence mounting to show powerful genetic predisposition. You may be able to take a ridiculously self-righteous, overly-moralistic stance about a person who is dumb enough to take crack the first time...but, pretty much after that, the logic of , "Those damn crack whores living in a box in the alley doing tricks for drugs choose be there! That's the life they want! The whiners who say they can't keep clean are just lazy assed, whiney, weaklings who can't get a grip!" is kind of full of shit.

Kudos to those who can overcome the cravings, and chemicals withdrawals, and hallucinations, and personality changes...but it is pretty much the equivalent of getting clean from oxygen.

Idea! Try this. Everyday, hold your breath until you pass out. Just once a day...every day. The first day you either fail to successfully make yourself pass out (even when you try) - or decide you just don't have the strength today - you're a lazy assed, whiney weakling.

Second, performing a permanent procedure on someone when it would be just as effective to implant a 6 month depro provera release borders on Nazi fascism.

Third, performing any medical procedure on someone who may, due to their drug addiction and current drug induced mind state, be incapable of understanding and actually consenting to the procedure would lose in ANY malpractice suit should anyone give enough of a shit about these women to sue someone.

Fourth - reiterating that it doesn't do shit for the kids they already have....seems like false-sincerity on the part of the organization.

Fifth - assuming they DO have the "personal integrity" and "strength" to get clean, wouldn't that earn them the right to have a child and, in fact, wouldn't that be the kind of "strength" one might want encouraged in the gene pool.

Should we continue....?



Quite good points in this post, sir.
But that one (the bold one...obviously... )I have to say yes, I sure do drugs but if I was to get a tubal ligation, I would do it of my own accord.
I CANT use the depo porvera or any other kind of birth controlbecause it turns me into a monster who bleeds continuously whilst on it and who has crippling migraines every day.
So I don't have that option for birth control.
I would much rather just rather get "fixed".
And whether I'm high off my ass or not, that's my decision.
(note:I am currently sobertongue)


I'm with you on this. I doubt your possible desire to get your tubes tied falls into the same category as a potentially non-cognitive individual who is on drugs at the time of the decision (or going through withdrawal at the time, which makes your mind even less clear) and is being offered $200 to have the procedure done.

Many women suffer severe reactions to chemical birth control including potential stroke. Somehow, I don't think that was the concern with this particular organization.

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

JUL 31, 2007 07:22 PM

malkav11 said:
But I haven't had a vasectomy because there's no point spending on money on having someone hack at my genitalia with sharp objects (hack is perhaps a strong word) when there's no real possibility of my having sex.


I was a pussy and was put under general anesthesia instead of being a big boy and just doing the local.

When I was a wee folk, I stepped on a broken beer bottle while catching tadpoles/polywogs/whatever in a creek. I had nightmares for about three years waking up to the sensation of the needle they inserted right into the laceration that ended up hitting the bone of my foot.

Being put under was money well spent. biggrin

DownNeck

DownNeck

Jersey City, NJ
March 2006

JUL 31, 2007 07:32 PM

Rafi said:

TheGringo said:
How is it doing harm if the person chooses the surgery? I believe it would do more harm if a person who didn't want kids became pregnant or got someone pregnant.



That's true under normal circumstances but the question is whether a woman with a serious drug addiction, and possibly under the influence of a psychoactive substance at the time, is enough of a freely acting agent to make a medical decision with lifelong, irreversible implications - especially when what amounts to a bribe enters the equations.



a decision with lifelong, irreversible implications...like having a child?

katie_

katie_

Nashua, NH
January 2003

JUL 31, 2007 07:54 PM

BurningKrome said:
Second, performing a permanent procedure on someone when it would be just as effective to implant a 6 month depro provera release borders on Nazi fascism.



Depo-Provera is a shot, not an implant, and it's administered every three months. It's not appropriate for everyone- I was advised not to use it because of the risk of severe mood-related side effects. I don't know of any 6-month implant. Maybe you could link to some information on that. I'd certainly be interested, since apparently it's just as effective as tubal ligation.

Also, are you just talking about the aforementioned drug addicts here? I'm not on crack; should I be allowed to get a tubal ligation or is that fascist too?

captaintripps616

captaintripps616

I'm lost
July 2007

JUL 31, 2007 07:55 PM

Well i want to have a vasectomy but i cant get one be.uase im too young. In my opinion if your 18 and youve thought about it long and hard(since i was 14) I think i should be able to have one. I really dont want kids and i dont want to take the risk, frown

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

JUL 31, 2007 08:00 PM

captaintripps616 said:
Well i want to have a vasectomy but i cant get one be.uase im too young. In my opinion if your 18 and youve thought about it long and hard(since i was 14) I think i should be able to have one. I really dont want kids and i dont want to take the risk, frown



There's always plan b:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)




biggrin

Emi

Emi

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

JUL 31, 2007 08:17 PM

apesamongus said:
You know, if I walked into a hospital and asked for someone to chop off my perfectly healthy left hand, I'd have a hard time convincing a doctor to do it. With the bizarre exception of plastic surgery, doctors are loathe to perform any operation that isn't for health reasons, particularly one that permanently stops any healthy part of the body from working.



+1

Postblank

Postblank

New Brunswick, NJ
June 2004

JUL 31, 2007 08:19 PM

I think it's kind of obnoxious how providers of personal health can use their own morals to throw a monkey wrench in a reasonable procedure. I merely asked about a vasectomy when I was 18 and got an earful of doublespeak garbage. I didn't want kids then, I want them even less years later. What kind of vitriolic hatred do I need to have for children before my request is granted?

Yet another greivance I have with the healthcare system in this country (United States). Get off my dick, middle America.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 14

Next

featured interviews