General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould chemotherapy be "rare"? How about insulin shots? Sutures?
Antibiotics? Bariatric surgery? MRI scans? Prozac? The Heimlich maneuver? Knee taping? Kocher's Method? Vasectomy? Cauterization? The Wagner-Jauregg treatment? Protein therapy? Vitamin A therapy? Talk therapy? Placebo therapy? Reflexlocomotion? Myringoplasty? Rhinoplasty? Electroconvulsive therapy?
What? No? Just that one medical intervention, then, should be "rare"? Hmm....
(Props to Wikipedia's "Medical Treatments" category page...)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I would love it if cirrhosis of the liver became rare, due to fewer people drinking alcohol to excess.
I would love it if quadruple bypasses became rare, due to people eating healthily and exercising more.
I would love it if chemotherapy became rare due to scientists discovering how people can avoid getting cancer.
I would love it if tooth fillings became rare because everyone started brushing their teeth correctly and regularly.
I would love it if AIDs became rare due to people using protection and not sharing needles.
And it would be great if improved access to contraception and better sex education resulted in abortions becoming rarer.
Perhaps you did not fully think through your analogy?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)with the sole purpose of there being fewer of them. That's the difference.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Is this "prescription" for a medical situation is not applied in cases like those you mention.
That's the point - that women are singled out because, in this nation, the number of whackos out there who think women should not even have access to birth control changes the conversation in relation to a medical issue that has to do with females and reproduction.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Which includes, but is sure not limited to, medical decisions between a person and their doctor.
The problem I see with it all is simple: Consistency across the board on keeping the government out of our personal choices.
When we start to justify such incursions we lose the ability to defend such incursions on other issues relating to personal freedoms.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare. And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.
I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third. And I am committed to do even more.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Rare because people have control over whether they get pregnant (in most cases) and should make better choices when it comes to sex? Rare because she feels abortion is wrong?
The frequency is not the issue to address, but the right to have the medical procedure is. And the right for it not to be the business of anyone outside of the patient and doctor.
Note she uses the word 'needs' to be rare. It probably would be rare if we did more on sex ed, made birth control more easily available, etc.
But I could care less what a politician wants when it comes to my (or others') freedoms. Food, drink, smoking, pregnancy, viagra, what the hell ever - none of those things should be freedoms we have to earn, fight for, or be punished for engaging in.
Yet we have types in both parties who want to use brute force and punishment to force others to live their lives a certain way and only be allowed to make choices they deem fit (to appease their god of money, or some other god).
I have been in relationships where others are controlling, I don't want to be in one like that with the people with power who have all the weapons and can remove you to jail and curtail even more freedoms. And I find it sad that so many will not only march right into such a prison but beg those in power to make it bigger and add more cells.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)pitbullgirl1965
(564 posts)A man was raped and tortured by medical personal because LEO thought he had narcotics in his anus.
Seriously this is triggering stuff.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/05/1253274/-Absolutely-unimaginable-this-could-happen-in-America
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Don't you agree?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)pnwmom
(109,006 posts)though many would prefer it if unwanted pregnancies could be avoided in the first place, including, most of all, the women experiencing the unwanted pregnancies. I don't know a single woman who had an abortion who thought it was a trivial procedure.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But unless one is making the general claim that all medical interventions should be rare because we should all be healthy, I don't see any point in claiming that "abortion should be rare" other than dog-whistling that you dislike abortion.
pnwmom
(109,006 posts)because we should all be healthy. That's the whole aim of preventative medicine.
Saying abortion ideally should be rare is making exactly the same point. Women should have easy access to effective, safe contraception; and those who want to go through a pregnancy should have access to medical care, food, and other support so that no one has to choose abortion simply out of financial need.
None of this changes the fact that it should be the woman and the woman alone who makes the ultimate decision.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)which is...OBVIOUSLY chemotherapy should be as available as its need. same with insulin, etc. etc. BUT the goal should be reduction of and elimination of those conditions.
I would imagine that if a woman chooses not to continue a pregnancy, she treats it as a negative health consequence that needs to be dealt with through medicine. Well, the same applies. An ounce of prevention is always preferred.
That is the point. Not some dog whistle as others continue to contend.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)That's not the issue, though. The issue is that it often is a dog whistle when spoken by people who, subtly or overtly, are anti-choice. And it plays into a cultural narrative that is both anti-freedom/privacy and anti-woman.
In an ideal world - or as close to ideal as humanly possible - would unwanted pregnancies be rare? Of course. No one in their right mind is going to dispute that. But we don't live in that world, and insisting that abortion be a rarity both stigmatizes women who need one, and even worse, potentially denies them one.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)I mean, right off the bat, chemo is fucking awful. And being on the verge of choking to death sucks too.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Selected elective proceedures...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)parenthood is not a viable option.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)We work on eliminating poverty.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)But for those that need them, they should be safe, legal, available, and free.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm just not able to figure out why what someone else does with their body shouldn't be between them and their doctor. How did I even get in the conversation?
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)...any more frequently than absolutely necessary.
So I guess your point is lost on me.
pnwmom
(109,006 posts)Much better not to have cancer or diabetes in the first place.
And it's much better not to have an unplanned, unwished for pregnancy in the first place.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)to make it rare, then from a fiscal standpoint--as well as one to promote the most positive health outcomes with the least evasive intervention--such measures should absolutely be utilized to prevent what we should characterize as a last resort.
Smart people should be concerned with avoiding problems and making them rare by promoting education and healthy living
enough
(13,264 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I expect this thread to be on the Greatest Page imminently.
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)Due to the reason for it being also non-existent.
Then I woke up...
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)if we could wave a wand and change human behaviors to a point where unwanted pregnancies were rare--that would naturally make abortions rare which would be a good thing all the way around.
Unfortunately, you've got the God worshipers preaching abstinence and hating on birth control. And funny thing....lots of them Christian younguns wind up pregnant.
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)When someone says abortion should be rare, it means situations where one is needed should be rare. And it makes less than zero sense for them to want to outlaw birth control AND abortions.
jmowreader
(50,567 posts)And if we get some of the carcinogens out of the environment it may well become.
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)If we could find ways to make these things less necessary, then yes, I would love to see them become rare.
johnd83
(593 posts)Improper use of any medical treatment is bad. Many people including myself support the right to choose but it is still not something that should be done lightly.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Though I get what you're saying and agree that it's a dodge, at the least, and a moral outrage aimed at women for the most part.
Because the reality is that if we want to make any medical situation based upon choices "rare" - we have to agree to preventive actions.
This means, for abortion, affordable and accessible birth control for females, along with sex education that is devoid of religious prescriptions.
This is what makes the statement offensive about abortion - because the reality is that those who claim to be the moral voice about this issue don't, ultimately, care about abortion as much as they care about forcing their religious prescriptions on American females.
The reality, as we all know, is that abortion will exist whether it's legal or not.
But we can take steps to make abortion less likely by making birth control part of the reality of life for anyone, MALE or female, who is sexually active. It's not just the female who has a vested interest in this from the stand point of personal responsibility.
Beyond that, there are situations where it is medically advisable to have an abortion and women should not have to feel this is in any way related to some other person's religious prescriptions for others' sexual lives either.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)but also acknowledge this is a tough issue for all involved. Not to mention it is a medical procedure women would rather not go through if they didn't feel it was necessary.
The ones you are referring to say NO ABORTION. The ones who say "rare" also typically believe in full access to affordable birth control and believe in a strong program of sex education for young people in school.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Keeping the minimum amount of daylight possible between the Democrats and the Republicans is what "moderates" want.
nxylas
(6,440 posts)I've been through chemo, and wouldn't wish it on anybody.
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)standpoint, but a preventative one. If I'm not mistaken, there seems to be some confusion on this, that if we say "rare", it means only some woman should have access and others should go without. That's not what we're trying to say at all. All women should have access, I think we're all in agreement on that. It's just if an unplanned pregnancy can be avoided, why not avoid it? It's not an easy thing to go through. It is best avoided but for circumstances where it could not be avoided then women should be able to have it done. When someone like Hilary Clinton says "rare", I always took it to mean that it's better for women to have as much control over their reproductive rights as possible and through education and easy access to birth control, would ultimately make the procedure less common through prevention, but is still available for anyone who needs it because there will always be a need for this no matter how careful one is to avoid it.
If the concern is that by saying rare, people will take it to mean unavailable for some, that's a shame.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If they were sincerely concerned with reducing the number of abortions, they would support ready access to contraception, sex education that went beyond abstinence-only, etc. In fact, of course, they're sincerely concerned about imposing their personal views of morality and thereby curtailing other people's choices.
There may also be some sincere opponents of abortion who are brought around to voting for pro-choice candidates on pragmatic grounds. Government policies that help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place have a greater effect in reducing the number of abortions than do the various RW attempts to circumvent Roe v. Wade.
I don't think it's a dog whistle if you say "safe, legal, and rare."
And, yes, as others have said, chemotherapy should indeed be rare. I don't know if I got cancer because of environmental pollutants or the like, but to the extent that there are available policy choices that would reduce the number of people who have to have chemo, they should be pursued.
At least somebody got it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)just like polio and smallpox.
Abortion should be unrestricted, however preventing unwanted pregnancies through education and contraption is a worthy goal.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)To pretend it's just a medical treatment is either stupid or willfully setting up an easy to knock down strawman.
Bryant
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Because eventually, if they become rare, it means that those diseases are effectively being eliminated.
If abortion becomes rare, it will be because we will have worked hard on eliminating the root causes of many abortions: poverty, poor sex education, lack of access to birth control, sexual assault, and so on.
When I say that abortion should be "rare" I say it because I want the NEED for abortions to be rare, not that I want the CHOICE to be rare.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)I would love for the health of the population to be such that all of those procedures were rare.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Not sure, no, Yes. (I hope I got them all and did not skip any by accident as that would be bad).
I'd like to use various forms of prevention to make treatments associated with illness, or other conditions that lead to pain, suffering, etc., rare.
In many of these situations, the person has some condition which does, or will, cause them pain or other forms of suffering. And the procedure in question is intended to help remove, stop, mitigate the pain, suffering, etc.
As for the procedure you decided to not name ... Yes. I'd like it to be rare too. And yes, I know the GOP uses a talking point using that term. Doesn't matter to me.
What matters to me is from my own personal experience. Some will say men should have nothing to say about abortion. Well, in this man's life, I've had three women come to me, and ask my for my help in making "their choice".
Should I have stayed silent? Told them "sorry, I have a penis and so it would be wrong for me to give you any advice on this topic."
The person who needs chemotherapy would rather NOT have to take it. And they can choose not to. Its a choice they would rather not be making.
From my experience, for many women, they "need" an abortion. They did not WANT one. It is a choice they would rather not be making. But its a choice they should have.
No one gets up in the morning eager to take Chemo. I think the same can be said for many of the treatments on your list. Nose job, Vasectomy seem like potential exceptions (and yes, I have heard of folks who "need" a nose job because of a deviated septum).
So I guess my point is your premise is wrong. You think no one would want many of these treatments (including abortion), to be rare.
I think you are wrong about that.