Join Our Community!
Share
Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum > Mental disorder and medication (Page 1)
User Profile
Q: Mental disorder and medication
asked by: diamondsz on March 16th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
Should people with mental disorders be having kids? Moreso, let me rephrase this, should they stop taking their medication to have a kid, those medications usually cause severe fetal defects?


I took Accutane for acne (feel free to read up on the dangers) anyway You are specifically told not to take it when pregnant, christ they won't even prescribe to some woman.

The problem I have is if all these people with some type of mental disorder that requires medication (I believe the statistics were 6 million plus Americans have some type of disorder) have a chance of bringing a child into this world with problems. Whos going to foot the bill?
Did you find this post useful?
|
Replies(20)
User Profile
DamianaRaven
replied on March 16th, 2009
Experienced User
Why, you are of course! The more the need for public health care, the higher taxes will be raised to fund it.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Darkmoon
replied on March 16th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
These days pregnant women might as well live in a bubble for nine months. Heck, women in general might as well not take any meds at all because almost everything out there from coffee to prescription medicine says: "If you're pregnant or could become pregnant..etc" so really, any female capable of becoming pregnant could be refused medication on the basis that it could harm a fetus, whether one is actually there or not.

As for whether people with disorders should reproduce, I think that's up to them. I personally feel it's a bit selfish to pass genetic faults on and perpetuate them in the gene pool (one of the many reasons I won't reproduce) but I wouldn't prohibit people from doing so. As long as they're prepared to foot the bill themselves for any special needs child they might produce, it's not my business.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank Darkmoon for this post: Moo 
Avatar
NeutralUsername
replied on March 16th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
Darkmoon wrote:
These days pregnant women might as well live in a bubble for nine months. Heck, women in general might as well not take any meds at all because almost everything out there from coffee to prescription medicine says: "If you're pregnant or could become pregnant..etc" so really, any female capable of becoming pregnant could be refused medication on the basis that it could harm a fetus, whether one is actually there or not.

As for whether people with disorders should reproduce, I think that's up to them. I personally feel it's a bit selfish to pass genetic faults on and perpetuate them in the gene pool (one of the many reasons I won't reproduce) but I wouldn't prohibit people from doing so. As long as they're prepared to foot the bill themselves for any special needs child they might produce, it's not my business.


Sure, but as a prochoicer, it would not be your business either if they could NOT foot the bill. The woman still has a choice to give birth to a special needs baby whether or not she can afford to take care of that baby.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
oopoopoop
replied on March 16th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
NeutralUsername wrote:

Sure, but as a prochoicer, it would not be your business either if they could NOT foot the bill. The woman still has a choice to give birth to a special needs baby whether or not she can afford to take care of that baby.


That's why I regard myself as pro-abortion. If the taxpayer is footing the bill, we should get a say in what we are paying for.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
NeutralUsername
replied on March 16th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
oopoopoop wrote:
NeutralUsername wrote:

Sure, but as a prochoicer, it would not be your business either if they could NOT foot the bill. The woman still has a choice to give birth to a special needs baby whether or not she can afford to take care of that baby.


That's why I regard myself as pro-abortion. If the taxpayer is footing the bill, we should get a say in what we are paying for.


If you believe in forced abortion, or advocate abortion or want women to abort because you want them to, doesn't that make you anti-choice?
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
oopoopoop
replied on March 16th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
NeutralUsername wrote:
oopoopoop wrote:
NeutralUsername wrote:

Sure, but as a prochoicer, it would not be your business either if they could NOT foot the bill. The woman still has a choice to give birth to a special needs baby whether or not she can afford to take care of that baby.


That's why I regard myself as pro-abortion. If the taxpayer is footing the bill, we should get a say in what we are paying for.


If you believe in forced abortion, or advocate abortion or want women to abort because you want them to, doesn't that make you anti-choice?


The choice can exist -- but it seems reasonable to not provide incentives to make the worse choice -- if someone chooses to carry on with an inappropriate pregnancy, they need to take that responsibility, and not expect to be bailed out by the taxpayer. Whatever you call it, there aren't nearly as many abortions as there should be.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
diamondsz
replied on March 17th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
NeutralUsername wrote:
Darkmoon wrote:
These days pregnant women might as well live in a bubble for nine months. Heck, women in general might as well not take any meds at all because almost everything out there from coffee to prescription medicine says: "If you're pregnant or could become pregnant..etc" so really, any female capable of becoming pregnant could be refused medication on the basis that it could harm a fetus, whether one is actually there or not.

As for whether people with disorders should reproduce, I think that's up to them. I personally feel it's a bit selfish to pass genetic faults on and perpetuate them in the gene pool (one of the many reasons I won't reproduce) but I wouldn't prohibit people from doing so. As long as they're prepared to foot the bill themselves for any special needs child they might produce, it's not my business.


Sure, but as a prochoicer, it would not be your business either if they could NOT foot the bill. The woman still has a choice to give birth to a special needs baby whether or not she can afford to take care of that baby.


What if the government didn't foot the bill and we didn't pay taxes, who would pay after NU?

Why couldn't they get a job, why should they sit on their rear end to collect, social? Not trying to be mean to anyone who is on it but why is it woman think they are entitled to stay home?

I'm not talking about the one who would support it out of their own pocket either.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
engelrani
replied on March 18th, 2009
New User
To add to your post Diamondsz, a lot of drugs also reduce the affectness of Birth Control, which means a pregnancy is more likely. Good luck getting fixed also, both men and women have a ton of problems getting steralized without having had several children and being over thirty.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
lucy315
replied on March 18th, 2009
Experienced User
engelrani wrote:
Good luck getting fixed also, both men and women have a ton of problems getting steralized without having had several children and being over thirty.


Yup. Apparently at age 28, I was not capable of making decisions about my body or about the fact that I have decided to remain child-free. Three doctors refused me a tubal ligation because I might "change my mind". I have known since the age of five that I didn't want kids! Even my baby dolls were never mine. I used to say they were my nieces or that I was babysitting them. Smile
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
nightangel73
replied on March 18th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
lucy315 wrote:
engelrani wrote:
Good luck getting fixed also, both men and women have a ton of problems getting steralized without having had several children and being over thirty.


Yup. Apparently at age 28, I was not capable of making decisions about my body or about the fact that I have decided to remain child-free. Three doctors refused me a tubal ligation because I might "change my mind". I have known since the age of five that I didn't want kids! Even my baby dolls were never mine. I used to say they were my nieces or that I was babysitting them. Smile


Doctors don't mean bad. They just worry about women with this thoughts because the fact is that some DO change their minds and it is awful for doctor to say to them no now you can't have children. Having a child is oh my the most amazing experience ever.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
oopoopoop
replied on March 19th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
nightangel73 wrote:
lucy315 wrote:
engelrani wrote:
Good luck getting fixed also, both men and women have a ton of problems getting steralized without having had several children and being over thirty.


Yup. Apparently at age 28, I was not capable of making decisions about my body or about the fact that I have decided to remain child-free. Three doctors refused me a tubal ligation because I might "change my mind". I have known since the age of five that I didn't want kids! Even my baby dolls were never mine. I used to say they were my nieces or that I was babysitting them. Smile


Doctors don't mean bad. They just worry about women with this thoughts because the fact is that some DO change their minds and it is awful for doctor to say to them no now you can't have children. Having a child is oh my the most amazing experience ever.


I am fortunate in not having had so dull a life as you, then.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
aochriss
replied on March 19th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
lol!
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
motherofhighspiritedones
replied on March 19th, 2009
Moderator
nightangel73 wrote:
lucy315 wrote:
engelrani wrote:
Good luck getting fixed also, both men and women have a ton of problems getting steralized without having had several children and being over thirty.


Yup. Apparently at age 28, I was not capable of making decisions about my body or about the fact that I have decided to remain child-free. Three doctors refused me a tubal ligation because I might "change my mind". I have known since the age of five that I didn't want kids! Even my baby dolls were never mine. I used to say they were my nieces or that I was babysitting them. Smile


Doctors don't mean bad. They just worry about women with this thoughts because the fact is that some DO change their minds and it is awful for doctor to say to them no now you can't have children. Having a child is oh my the most amazing experience ever.
Know what? A tubal ligation CAN be reversed. And it can have upwards of a 70% success rate. So don't give that bs about doctors just worrying that a woman might change her mind.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
diamondsz
replied on March 19th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
motherofhighspiritedones wrote:
nightangel73 wrote:
lucy315 wrote:
engelrani wrote:
Good luck getting fixed also, both men and women have a ton of problems getting steralized without having had several children and being over thirty.


Yup. Apparently at age 28, I was not capable of making decisions about my body or about the fact that I have decided to remain child-free. Three doctors refused me a tubal ligation because I might "change my mind". I have known since the age of five that I didn't want kids! Even my baby dolls were never mine. I used to say they were my nieces or that I was babysitting them. Smile


Doctors don't mean bad. They just worry about women with this thoughts because the fact is that some DO change their minds and it is awful for doctor to say to them no now you can't have children. Having a child is oh my the most amazing experience ever.
Know what? A tubal ligation CAN be reversed. And it can have upwards of a 70% success rate. So don't give that bs about doctors just worrying that a woman might change her mind.


My mother had a tubal ligation after 4 children, a year later it was reversed and she had another two, followed by another tubal ligation, so yep it is a crock of bull.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
NeutralUsername
replied on March 19th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
diamondsz wrote:
motherofhighspiritedones wrote:
nightangel73 wrote:
lucy315 wrote:
engelrani wrote:
Good luck getting fixed also, both men and women have a ton of problems getting steralized without having had several children and being over thirty.


Yup. Apparently at age 28, I was not capable of making decisions about my body or about the fact that I have decided to remain child-free. Three doctors refused me a tubal ligation because I might "change my mind". I have known since the age of five that I didn't want kids! Even my baby dolls were never mine. I used to say they were my nieces or that I was babysitting them. Smile


Doctors don't mean bad. They just worry about women with this thoughts because the fact is that some DO change their minds and it is awful for doctor to say to them no now you can't have children. Having a child is oh my the most amazing experience ever.
Know what? A tubal ligation CAN be reversed. And it can have upwards of a 70% success rate. So don't give that bs about doctors just worrying that a woman might change her mind.


My mother had a tubal ligation after 4 children, a year later it was reversed and she had another two, followed by another tubal ligation, so yep it is a crock of bull.


Then why don't doctors do it for every woman who requests it? I have heard it IS because women change their minds even though it can be reversed. But why does a woman not actually have that right to get it done if she can have as many abortions as she wants?
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
diamondsz
replied on March 19th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
NeutralUsername wrote:
diamondsz wrote:
motherofhighspiritedones wrote:
nightangel73 wrote:
lucy315 wrote:
engelrani wrote:
Good luck getting fixed also, both men and women have a ton of problems getting steralized without having had several children and being over thirty.


Yup. Apparently at age 28, I was not capable of making decisions about my body or about the fact that I have decided to remain child-free. Three doctors refused me a tubal ligation because I might "change my mind". I have known since the age of five that I didn't want kids! Even my baby dolls were never mine. I used to say they were my nieces or that I was babysitting them. Smile


Doctors don't mean bad. They just worry about women with this thoughts because the fact is that some DO change their minds and it is awful for doctor to say to them no now you can't have children. Having a child is oh my the most amazing experience ever.
Know what? A tubal ligation CAN be reversed. And it can have upwards of a 70% success rate. So don't give that bs about doctors just worrying that a woman might change her mind.


My mother had a tubal ligation after 4 children, a year later it was reversed and she had another two, followed by another tubal ligation, so yep it is a crock of bull.


Then why don't doctors do it for every woman who requests it? I have heard it IS because women change their minds even though it can be reversed. But why does a woman not actually have that right to get it done if she can have as many abortions as she wants?


I wish I knew NUN, Id rather have a tubal then worry about a pregnancy or forking out 25$/month for the pill!

Its the concept of a breeder brain, that was not to you but thats how I felt, my ex got a vasectomy, no questions asked but I was refused several times for a tubal because I may want more children. Sometimes I wonder if its done so that pharmaceutical companies can make money on BC, not trying to come off paranoid or seriously they really have a breeder brain.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
engelrani
replied on March 19th, 2009
New User
nightangel73 wrote:
lucy315 wrote:
engelrani wrote:
Good luck getting fixed also, both men and women have a ton of problems getting steralized without having had several children and being over thirty.


Yup. Apparently at age 28, I was not capable of making decisions about my body or about the fact that I have decided to remain child-free. Three doctors refused me a tubal ligation because I might "change my mind". I have known since the age of five that I didn't want kids! Even my baby dolls were never mine. I used to say they were my nieces or that I was babysitting them. Smile


Doctors don't mean bad. They just worry about women with this thoughts because the fact is that some DO change their minds and it is awful for doctor to say to them no now you can't have children. Having a child is oh my the most amazing experience ever.



Good for you, I'm glad kids give you joy, for me there my greatest fear, becoming pregnant would ruin my life. I can't take my medication because they cause birth defects. Bi-polar and panics attacks for nine months, longer if I want to breastfeed (and if you don't breastfeed you get the mommy patrol on your butt for putting rat poison in your babies body). You are very much against abortion, which means that I am left no options in your eyes other then to suffer for months and spend most of my pregnancy in a mental instition because I will harm myself without the med.

The problem is that doctors don't give a rat behind about my feeling or issues, they don't care aftermath of a pregnancy for someone like me. All they care is in ensuring that I fullfill my only role in their eye's as a women and have baby after baby like a good girl. I lucky that my husband is finally getting his vasecomty, it took us months to find someone who would fix him. I still want my tube tied, based on having been raped at seventeen and become pregnant, I'm willing to remove my entire reproductive system to make sure that never happens again.

Hopefully on day you will come to realize that not everyone wants the life you live. It's great that children give you happiness and that their awesome, but you need to realize that not everyone wants your life. Nothing is worse then being born to someone who doesn't want you. My mom didn't want me or my siblings but she was Catholic and only duty as a women was giving birth to baby after baby for God's army. She never loved us, barely even held us or showed any affections. I would rather regret not having children down the road (highly unlikely but hey I'll admit it's a very sight possiblity), then to bring a child into this world that I'm unable to love.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank engelrani for this post: oopoopoop  diamondsz 
User Profile
motherofhighspiritedones
replied on March 20th, 2009
Moderator
diamondsz wrote:
NeutralUsername wrote:
diamondsz wrote:
motherofhighspiritedones wrote:
nightangel73 wrote:
lucy315 wrote:
engelrani wrote:
Good luck getting fixed also, both men and women have a ton of problems getting steralized without having had several children and being over thirty.


Yup. Apparently at age 28, I was not capable of making decisions about my body or about the fact that I have decided to remain child-free. Three doctors refused me a tubal ligation because I might "change my mind". I have known since the age of five that I didn't want kids! Even my baby dolls were never mine. I used to say they were my nieces or that I was babysitting them. Smile


Doctors don't mean bad. They just worry about women with this thoughts because the fact is that some DO change their minds and it is awful for doctor to say to them no now you can't have children. Having a child is oh my the most amazing experience ever.
Know what? A tubal ligation CAN be reversed. And it can have upwards of a 70% success rate. So don't give that bs about doctors just worrying that a woman might change her mind.


My mother had a tubal ligation after 4 children, a year later it was reversed and she had another two, followed by another tubal ligation, so yep it is a crock of bull.


Then why don't doctors do it for every woman who requests it? I have heard it IS because women change their minds even though it can be reversed. But why does a woman not actually have that right to get it done if she can have as many abortions as she wants?


I wish I knew NUN, Id rather have a tubal then worry about a pregnancy or forking out 25$/month for the pill!

Its the concept of a breeder brain, that was not to you but thats how I felt, my ex got a vasectomy, no questions asked but I was refused several times for a tubal because I may want more children. Sometimes I wonder if its done so that pharmaceutical companies can make money on BC, not trying to come off paranoid or seriously they really have a breeder brain.
Doctors don't do it (and this is the reason I was given at the time of my first request for one)unless it is MEDICALLY necessary or you already have children. They don't really take into account one's mental status because they have the frame of thinking that if a new safe treatment for depression or whatever condition the woman has is developed, they are doing her a favor by "preserving" her fertility. They don't think that a woman is truly capable of making her own fertility decisions. I'll put it this way: My first request for a tubal was after my daughter was born. I realized that after having two babies, both preemies, the last one earlier than the first, my body could not handle a pregnancy. The doctor I was seeing said I was too young, that what if I got a divorce from my husband later on down the line, and my new husband wanted children, what would I do? I mentioned that tubals ARE reversible (yeah, I did my homework) and this doctor said, "I'd rather not put your fertility at risk". As if he was doing me a favor!!! Needless to say, I got pregnant again (stupid condom)and had another preemie, this one coming at 23 1/2 weeks. Finally, that caught the attention of the doctors. I still got hassled. I was told that they fixed my retroverted uterus during my c-section and that since my heart condition was stable, I theoretically *could* have more children. OMG!!! I just had my third PREEMIE!!! They made me wait until after 4 weeks postpartum. Just in case I changed my mind, due to my son's low survivability rate. Yes, they made me WAIT AGAIN, because they feared I would regret a tubal if my son died! NO WAY! I would rather NEVER EVER put a life at risk again, regardless whether they "fixed" this or that medical problem that "may" have contributed. I was not willing to take the risk. My son died 5 months after his birth, and 5 years have passed. I have no regrets. I am saving my own life and any life that might come into play. I had two ectopics due to some complications and can gladly say I aborted them to save my own life. Yep, another type of abortion. But, justified, as you prolife would say. Well I say any abortion is justified until doctors start listening to women who are deadset and serious about their own fertility wishes. And until birth control is taught and free.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank motherofhighspiritedones for this post: diamondsz  engelrani 
User Profile
chahal2
replied on March 29th, 2009
New User
To have or have no children
I am in a dilema. I take medication for psychosis. I am married and my family expect me to get pregnant. On the other hand the doctors are telling me it is too risky to get pregnant. What am I supposed to do? Remain childless or adopt? I heard that the adoption agencies don't allow people with a mental illness to adopt.
Did you find this post useful?
|
12 >>
Quick Reply
Search