Birth Rape

a reply to: proteus33

I have read cases like this too. Thats why I tried to be as sensitive as possible to the fact that YES malpractice does take place.

I guess I am gullible. I don't know why this angers anyone. Is this about bashing hormonal pregnant women or malpractice laws.

a reply to: s3cz0ne

I TOTALLY AGREE.

I recently had a huge argument with someone because I made the statement that some social changes that came with the feminist movement were not so positive, such as chivalry dying, and the fact that its more frowned upon now to be a stay at home mum. And also that if the biggest pressure in my life was that I had to get a husband by 25, I could have handled that hahaha. This women acted as if I was saying women deserve to be killed and are second class citizens. -_-

I was really only speaking lightheartedly about it and suddenly it was a huge issue (to be fair tequila was involved but you know what I'm saying.)

a reply to: WilsonWilson

Also i mentioned later in the comments that how do you draw the line with consent when there is a babies life at risk

For the record I am pro choice within a time limit and within reason, but when you are giving birth the child inside you by that point certainly must have some rights.
Often in these stories it seems that if the doctors did nothing, the child, or the mother and child could have died.

Im curious as to how you feel about that side of things. I agree that everyone should have to consent, but surely there are situations where its a life or death matter, perhaps due to the pain and trauma of child birth maybe the woman isn't even able to make a clear decision.
I agree with you saying that YES malpractice does happen, and perhaps this women has a right to feel assaulted. I stand by the fact that using the word rape is innapropriate.

a reply to: IvyNeptune

"For the record I am pro choice within a time limit and within reason, but when you are giving birth the child inside you by that point certainly must have some rights.
Often in these stories it seems that if the doctors did nothing, the child, or the mother and child could have died."

There is that ownership. I was waiting for it. Your whole argument is bunk now. I get to say what happens to my body, just like a man.

Bwhaha... birth rape. I'm sorry; I can't take feminist seriously after this.

The woman is the patient, not the child, it has no rights until it is born. If you disagree with this or not it doesn't matter, the reality of the situation is that every person has a right to refuse medical treatment. If doctors or midwives ignore this they are committing assault. So the woman isn't "feeling" assaulted, she has in fact been assaulted. Now as for the word rape, yes technically its wrong, but in normal parlance it is used, you might someone has been raped with a bottle, when the correct way to describe it would be to say to say they have been sexually assaulted with a bottle.
I'm in the UK and as I said, the midwives must expressly get permission foe EVERY internal examination, or its assault.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
The woman is the patient, not the child, it has no rights until it is born.

There are over 30 states that grant unborn children rights. They are also covered under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

a reply to: MOMof3
Even if your choice means that your baby doesn't get delivered quickly enough and has physical and mental impairments as a result?

It's a common thing to happen if the baby "poops" inside you causing meconium aspiration. It can be very serious, I know, as my firstborn had this happen. Luckily, I let the doctor do her thing to get him out in time, so he didn't DIE.

I am baffled that these women are so affronted by medical procedures during birthing. So many thing can go wrong. They can't see the details, baby's heart rate monitor, their heart rate monitor, meconium strip tests, etc, etc. Unless they are a doctor themselves, and know how to monitor a patient's condition, read baby's stats, they shouldn't be complaining.

There was meconium in my waters when I had my last child, an external monitor was strapped on and I had a normal vaginal delivery within 45 minutes.
While I'm sure that there are certain rights that unborn babies have, it would probably take z court order to force treatment onto a woman.
The arrogant dismissal of these women's feelings Is just crazy, if it helps then get over the trauma, let them.

a reply to: misnomer68

Oh give me a break. I had a third child because my husband would not do the simple procedure of a vasectomy. I am not baffled at all by that thinking, it is his body.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: misnomer68

Oh give me a break. I had a third child because my husband would not do the simple procedure of a vasectomy. I am not baffled at all by that thinking, it is his body.

Well then surely you had a third child because you chose to have unprotected sex?...you knew the consequences right?

Annnnnnd this is why I'm not a feminist.

One more reason, anyway.

Love the lady in the OP stating her baby "didn't need" an internal fetal monitor.

How the fluck would she know??

a reply to: Prezbo369

Well, of course. And he had another kid to support. That was not the point. Birth control was complicated for me because of hypertension. It would have been simple for him, but I respected that it was his body.

a reply to: lovebeck
Maybe she asked for a case review? Its what you can do in the UK if you are unhappy about medical treatment. But reading about it, it sounds like a very dangerous thing to do for mother and baby if the woman is struggling.

I think this thread shows there's still a need for feminism!
People are saying I'm not a feminist, women should open their legs and shut their mouths basically. Its kinda scary people still have these opinions, maybe the idea of women being forcibly held down while things are inserted gives them some kind of thrill.

a reply to: WilsonWilson

I consider myself a feminist. I'm one of those leftist progressives that everyone around here hates so much. But my question is, did these women tell the doctors before the delivery that they didn't want anything inserted into their vagina, no matter what, even if it meant the death of their child? If they did tell them that, then I would agree that the doctors had no right to do it.

You have several months to prepare for this. You have several months to ask your doctor what if questions. "What if this happens, what are you going to do?" You have several months to communicate to the doctor what you do or do not want them to do to you. I asked a thousand questions to my doctor during those months. If she wasn't willing to answer those questions, I would have changed doctors. If I had some requirements on what I wanted or didn't want her to do and she refused, I would have found another doctor. You have several months to do this.

Now if all these women told their doctors up front they didn't want certain things done, and the doctors agreed, then did it anyway during the delivery - then these women have a right to be upset. I'm not getting the feeling that this is the case though. Why wouldn't they put on their signs that their doctors lied to them about what they would or wouldn't do? I would think that would be a pretty important part of the grievance.

a reply to: kaylaluv
Permission must be given at the time, somebody should be explaining what is happening and why. Is someone is clearly saying stop, then they should stop.
I've had 3 kids and we don't see doctors in the UK, just the midwife, discussions as you've described just don't happen. However during labour the midwives clearly explain and get permission for procedures. If they don't it because they are incompetant.

a reply to: WilsonWilson

Well, in my opinion, discussions should be happening beforehand. That's just smart.

When you are going through a rough delivery, chances are you are scared, even to the point of panicking. One doesn't always make good decisions when one is scared and panicking. That's why it's wise to prepare ahead of time. Know ahead of time what bad things could happen and how you want them handled. I don't see how anyone could think that doesn't make good sense.

a reply to: kaylaluv
They probably don't want to panic mothers by going through the worst case scenarios of what could happen.