ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
rubbish
I must have been unique, then, eh?
rubbish
I must have been unique, then, eh?
Can't say I've ever heard of anyone who's just stopped using anything without also addressing their social situation.rubbish
Can't say I've ever heard of anyone who's just stopped using anything without also addressing their social situation.
You're making some silly assumptions.
Yes, I'm not in disagreement. However, I read VP as saying that people have to avoid certain places forever. That's just not true for everyone.
No, I'm really not. I'm well aware from prior postings of your own situation. Don't you believe that your views are mediated by your professional experience, though, even so far asd your personal experience of addiction is concerned?
Me, I don't believe we can escape such mediation!
I didn't say it was true for everyone. I said it was rare, and in my experience it is.
It's sad that this has been inevitably derailed into discussing abortion when it wasn't about that at all. It seems like hobby horses always come out whenever you mention pregnancy. I think it's counter productive.
For example, there are loads of ex addicts working in drug services with ex users. Sometimes working with people they used to graft/score and use with. If what you say is true, then they'd be relapsing left, right and centre.
I think you can be cured but not recover a lot of the time.Is it the difference between recovery and cure? That you can recover from an addition but even if you've been recovered for ages, it's still problematic saying that you've been "cured"?
Is it the difference between recovery and cure? That you can recover from an addition but even if you've been recovered for ages, it's still problematic saying that you've been "cured"?
Not sure what you mean by that.I think you can be cured but not recover a lot of the time.
Like, if you had cancer. You might be cured of the cancer, but not recover back to where you were, if that makes sense?Not sure what you mean by that.
Lol. NahTalking from experience?
Cancer is probably not a bad analogy as a lot of cancers are never cured, you just go into remission. Permanently perhaps, but it's still considered remission.Like, if you had cancer. You might be cured of the cancer, but not recover back to where you were, if that makes sense?
There is a particular article I was thinking of, can't find it now. It was about what it was really like being a midwife in the 1940s, before the NHS. It contained the memorable sentence 'There was an epidemic of "overlaying"'. Overlaying was where the mother goes to sleep next to the baby and 'accidentally' smothers it. The midwives would basically collude in covering this up, because the woman couldn't afford to raise the child and I guess orphanages were horrible.
I'm not saying it is. Just that in many cases cancer can't be "cured".Cancer is nothing like drug addiction
Eactly this. If I were to have a pregnancy I'd still have to take various medications yet most of what I currently take are contraindicated for pregnancy, so it would like to be several months of pain and kidney problems, if not pre-eclampsia. There is a balance to be struck.How about taking medication which is good for the mother, but will cause birth defects in the baby? Or, eating soft cheese and risking listeria? Or having pain relief in labour that puts the baby at risk, directly or indirectly?
I know a lot of people say that.A lot of the time recovery means not reverting to what you were but in fact moving forward.
I'm not a lawyer, I do not think they would make a ruling that made women responsible for "a crime against a person" while she was pregnant, that simultaneously made abortion illegal.
Do you mean before not after?Personally I felt like I never knew myself after addiction and as such it was a case of leaving my past behaviour in the past and starting again. I have heard many ex users say exactly the same thing.
I know who I am. Anyway. Bit of a derail.No I mean after addiction
Unfortunately for the human race, most legal decisions are formulated with reference to prior precedent, so if a foetus is considered to be a person in one legal decision, the precedent is set for a case to be made that the precedent applies in other situations, or even "across the board".
Just for reference, terminations after 14 weeks are via induction of miscarriage and the mother goes through labour just the same as she would at the end of pregnancy. It isn't surgical or in theatre.I'll bet money, that were you in theatre for an 'as late as necessary', you wouldn't eat for a while. It is not at all nice. It is the thing that theatre staff dread most.
Everyone's experience is different. Don't assume your own experience is universal.
The short version is that it opens the door for a great many other things. If I look to the US, there have been cases of judges ordering ceaserians, and going to court to mandate bedrest to prevent miscarriage. Which according to the doctor I spoke to while experiencing bleeding during pregnancy, is usually useless- very little of the stuff that is advised to prevent miscarriage makes any difference, they just advise that women don't do anything that they are likely to think would cause the miscarriage and make them blame themselves.