Small Talk: What's Revealed At Nonnatus House Stays At Nonnatus House

[Ohwell]

I don't know why they're so hard on Barbara.  That one outfit looks like she's in pajamas and bathrobe.

[Raingirlkm]

I think the outfits on all the paper-dolls are supposed to be their night clothes. Then they have their nursing uniform and one other outfit: Trixie has a coat, Patsy has her cubs uniform, etc.

[Driad]

Not sure where this belongs ... the Grantchester forum had some CTM discussion recently.  The show is set in the mid 1950s (before CTM) and a baby was just born. Someone suggested it might have been fun if one of the CTM midwives had been there. Sister Evangeline got some votes.

Also, have we seen Rev. Tom baptize a baby in church?  Some ministers can calm a screeching baby even when the parents can't. I doubt Tom has the experience to do that yet.

[elle]

I just ran across this article, sorry it is a little late, but still fun!

Alone this Valentine's? Miranda Hart is here for you

[Spunkygal]

Yay! The new season starts here in the US on March 25th! Can't wait! 

[JeanneH]

Have the episodes on pbs.org been edited as the US broadcast episodes are?

[caitmcg]

47 minutes ago, JeanneH said:

Have the episodes on pbs.org been edited as the US broadcast episodes are?

Yeah, they're the same as the broadcast episodes, AFAIK.

[JeanneH]

boo!  (thanks for the info)

[OtterMommy]

In the s07.07 episode, @JudyObscure wrote:

Quote

 

I can think of quite a few American shows with cast members who look like normal people, some shows even feature lead actresses who look normal and even get awards, Elisabeth Moss for example. 

I get rather tired of this stereotype of the American actors as  more shallow, more vain,  and less well trained  than the  British actors.  I lived in England for three years and would hear the British actresses being interviewed on the radio and, believe me, the attitude that they themselves were quite superior to all those in Hollywood was front and center at all times. 

If the Brits simply don't care about appearances it's surprising that the actress playing Edith didn't have the lead in Downton and that Cynthia didn't have the lead over Jenny in Midwives.

 

I moved my response over here since I don't think I'm going to directly reference CTM at all....

Anyway, I see both sides of this.  I think that in general the British theatre/TV world is less demanding that actresses (especially) and actors meet certain physical requirements and in general the US TV/Movie (but not really theater,...) world is more demanding in that area.  Are there exceptions?  Of course, there are.  But, I have always seen actresses who aren't, let's say, supermodel-level...as well as actresses of a certain age (and not trying to hide it) in British works and I've seen it less often in American works.  And, on the age front, I've seen another strange things.  In non-US shows, I see not-20-year-old actresses playing mothers and newlyweds, where in shows from the US, actresses of the same age would be far less likely to be playing mothers and/or newlyweds or, if they do, a big deal is made about their age.  Also, in the US, you get strange things like 60 year old actresses playing the role of mothers to roles played by actors who are 55.

 

So, after all that blathering, I'm going to say that I do believe that the physical plays a much bigger role in the US than in non-US countries (the UK specifically).  I recently listened to an interview with an actress, someone who would probably be considered at best B-list, that I like who, until last year, had been working for several years outside of Los Angeles.  She said that as soon as she comes back to LA the pressure to improve her appearance and get in shape is overwhelming and that she's told that this is something she needs to do to get jobs (she's also in the her mid/late-30s, so the pressure to look a certain way is much higher).  This woman, in her not-LA days was, maybe a size-2.  She's now probably a size-0 and I bet she needs to take her clothes in.  If I didn't know what I know about her, I'd suspect that she's anorexic.  This actress is also Ivy-league educated, very well-spoken, and incredibly well-read.  From everything I've read and seen from comparable British actresses, I just can't see that she would have to go through the same thing on the other side of the pond.

Now, as for the whole British actors are better trained thing...yeah, I don't buy that either.  Yes, there are some amazing actors in England who have had extensive training.  Guess what, there are actors who fit that mold in the US, too.  And, honestly, I've seen more than a few less than great British actors.  I do think the attitude, though, comes from both sides and I'm not sure what came first.  I do think that there seems to be some sort of self-consciousness on the part of the US here.  Honestly, I think that a lot of actors--and the press covering the US industry--sometimes sell American actors short.  Also, I think there is an American tendency to confuse British Accents with Acting Ability.  On the other side of things, I think that there can sometimes be a smugness from some British actors over their American counterparts that is not warranted.

A final illustration on this: Whenever an American actor performs a role with a British accent, it's judged and either lauded or condemned.  When a British actor performs a role with an American accent, it's rarely commented on, as if it is just completely normal for them to speak with a completely different dialect (even when it is horrible...looking at you, Benedict Cumberbatch...)

Ack, I hope I made some sense in all this.  Sorry for all the babbling just to say, "I agree with you on  most points..."

[tljgator]

While I do think at least some of the "reality" of many British shows has to do with hair, clothes (wardrobe), and teeth being more like "normal" people in work-a-day settings of all kinds, I agree with you on appearance, broadly.

37 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

She said that as soon as she comes back to LA the pressure to improve her appearance and get in shape is overwhelming and that she's told that this is something she needs to do to get jobs (she's also in the her mid/late-30s, so the pressure to look a certain way is much higher).  This woman, in her not-LA days was, maybe a size-2.  She's now probably a size-0 and I bet she needs to take her clothes in.  If I didn't know what I know about her, I'd suspect that she's anorexic.

I don't spend as much time in LA these days as I used to (one of my good friends is an actress), but one of the things I'm always startled by is how teeny-tiny actresses are in real life. I mean, women we perceive as "normal-sized" on TV are usually a size 2 (or 4 at most), and those called "plus-sized" are maybe a size 10. People who meet my friend in real life are usually shocked that she's so skinny.

I'm sure much of that is the same across the pond, but I do think there's an acceptable level of "pretty" and "young" enforced here, even for roles where it might not be so in the real world (oh, the endless debates at TWoP in the Castle forums about them making Stana Katic grow her hair out into a long, glamorous mane that she rarely pulled back while deftly solving crimes in designer clothes and high heels, post-season 1). The age thing may be even more pronounced, though, and, in particular, the notion of Judith Light playing Mitch Peleggi's mom on the Dallas reboot was ridiculous -- but sadly, all too normal on US TV.

I appreciate the fact that most folks on British TV shows look like people I encounter in everyday life; it makes things feel more authentic to me in some ways (not that I don't appreciate plenty of US shows anyway).

[OtterMommy]

1 minute ago, tljgator said:

The age thing may be even more pronounced, though, and, in particular, the notion of Judith Light playing Mitch Peleggi's mom on the Dallas reboot was ridiculous -- but sadly, all too normal on US TV.

I appreciate the fact that most folks on British TV shows look like people I encounter in everyday life; it makes things feel more authentic to me in some ways (not that I don't appreciate plenty of US shows anyway).

Ha ha!  The Dallas example was the one I was thinking of--but it is clearly not the only one (just the first to jump into my mind!)

I also appreciated the "everyday" people I see in British TV shows and I really wish I saw more of that in US shows.  However, I know other people who have said things along the lines of, "I don't watch TV to see ugly people"...and that just makes me sad.

[Brattinella]

2 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

I also appreciated the "everyday" people I see in British TV shows and I really wish I saw more of that in US shows.  However, I know other people who have said things along the lines of, "I don't watch TV to see ugly people"...and that just makes me sad.

 

I appreciate British shows very much.  They do look and act like real people.  I watch AcornTV quite a bit, and I love it.

 

7 minutes ago, tljgator said:

I don't spend as much time in LA these days as I used to (one of my good friends is an actress), but one of the things I'm always startled by is how teeny-tiny actresses are in real life. I mean, women we perceive as "normal-sized" on TV are usually a size 2 (or 4 at most), and those called "plus-sized" are maybe a size 10. People who meet my friend in real life are usually shocked that she's so skinny.

 

Yep.  Most American actresses I've seen on the red carpet are stick-insect thin.  But 75% of Americans are overweight or obese.

[Portia]

Here's my harebrained theory:  Hollywood's tendency to cast women who are too young IRL for the roles they play (such as a 25-year-old actress paired with a 45-year-old screen husband, or a 45-year-old actress playing the mother of a 30-year-old character) is a direct result of Hollywood's emphasis on women being stick-thin. Being too thin makes them look older.  I've lost count of the times that I've seen an actress in her 40s or above, thought to myself, "Oh dear . . . she used to be so beautiful, but she's looking a bit tired and drawn," and then realized that if she'd gain, like, 5 pounds she would look worlds better.  It's perfectly natural for even a thin, healthy person to put on the tiniest bit of meat in their middle and later years, and it tends to have a softening effect. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Portia

[OtterMommy]

Just now, Portia said:

Here's my harebrained theory:  Hollywood's tendency to cast women who are too young IRL for the roles they play (such as a 25-year-old actress paired with a 45-year-old screen husband, or a 45-year-old actress playing the mother of a 30-year-old character) is a direct result of Hollywood's emphasis on women being stick-thin. Being too thin makes them look older.  I've lost count of the times that I've seen an actress in her 40s or above, thought to myself, "Oh dear . . . she used to be so beautiful, but she's looking a bit tired and drawn," and then realized that if she'd gain, like, 5 pounds and she'd look worlds better.  It's perfectly natural for even a thin, healthy person to put on the tiniest bit of meat in their middle and later years, and it tends to have a softening effect. 

I definitely think that this is part of it.  It kind of feels like some of these actresses just can't win--lose weight to get roles, but then not get cast because you look too old.  

[JudyObscure]

3 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

 

 

 

Honestly, I think that a lot of actors--and the press covering the US industry--sometimes sell American actors short.  Also, I think there is an American tendency to confuse British Accents with Acting Ability.  On the other side of things, I think that there can sometimes be a smugness from some British actors over their American counterparts that is not warranted.

 

I agree with all you've said, particularly that part.  After our years in England, listening to constant  nasty remarks and jokes about  "Yanks," whispered just loud enough for us to hear, I'm hyper sensitive when we're put down as inferior.

I may have had enough now that the show seems to be more about changing fashions and less about the nuns and midwives helping the poor people of Poplar.  My favorite episodes were ones like the girl giving birth on the ship and the typhoid spread through the awful toilets they had to use.  Beauty pageants and  go-go boots just don't compare.

I really should have quit watching after season 6 episode 4 when Sister Julienne was desperate for more midwives, taking applications from far and wide,  but she and Nurse Crane both  firmly agreed, "No Americans!"

[LadyChaos]

On 5/1/2016 at 10:32 AM, craziness said:

I read the books a few years ago,  and the early seasons of the show used the stories from the books,  but since JW wrote mostly her own experiences,  the show split the cases among the various midwives.  I think they ran out of stories from the books around the end of season 2/middle of season 3, so everything since then is new. 

It's not that they ran out of stories after the 2/3 season, its that Jennifer Worth was only at 'Nonnatus' house for 2 or 3 years and then left to do hospice care, which again she left to pursue music.  Once Jenny left for hospice, there was still such a following for the show that they were forced to go into a new direction and make it less of a docudrama and more of a period drama.

[mmecorday]

I recently started watching this show and I love it. But there are only six season available on Netflix. Does anyone know where I can find season seven?

[OtterMommy]

Season 7 should be on Netflix soon.  You might be able to see it on the PBS app (that one is kind of funky...sometimes it only has 1 episode).  *If* the DVD's have been released for the season 7 (I don't t know if they have), you might be able to get them at your public library.

[caitmcg]

3 hours ago, OtterMommy said:

*If* the DVD's have been released for the season 7 (I don't t know if they have), you might be able to get them at your public library.

The DVDs of each season are pretty much available at the time the seasons first airs on PBS (they are promoted when it's on), so they've been out since spring.

[mmecorday]

Thanks! I found the DVDs on Amazon.

[dcalley]

Call the Midwife series 7 comes to Netflix (US) September 10.

[LeGrandElephant]

Is there a thread for medical questions about childbirth and pregnancy in the show? I have two:

Why do they often say “it’s very important that you do not push yet”? Is that still done? 

Sheila’s pregnancy: I thought once you were on bed rest, it was for the rest of the pregnancy. But she was up and about and energetic while still pregnant after so,e time of bed rest. Is that normal? 

[HazelEyes4325]

1 hour ago, LeGrandElephant said:

Is there a thread for medical questions about childbirth and pregnancy in the show? I have two:

Why do they often say “it’s very important that you do not push yet”? Is that still done? 

Sheila’s pregnancy: I thought once you were on bed rest, it was for the rest of the pregnancy. But she was up and about and energetic while still pregnant after so,e time of bed rest. Is that normal? 

 

I'm not a doctor, so this is anecdotal, but...

I was told in both my deliveries not to push until a certain point.  The second time, it's because my son was coming and my OB was not quite ready to catch him!  

I've also had a number of friends who were put on bed rest for various reasons, but most of them were taken off bed rest before delivery.

[doodlebug]

17 hours ago, LeGrandElephant said:

Is there a thread for medical questions about childbirth and pregnancy in the show? I have two:

Why do they often say “it’s very important that you do not push yet”? Is that still done? 

Sheila’s pregnancy: I thought once you were on bed rest, it was for the rest of the pregnancy. But she was up and about and energetic while still pregnant after so,e time of bed rest. Is that normal? 

I'm an obstetrician, practicing for 32 years.  In labor, the cervix has to dilate completely, to 10 cm, before pushing, but a woman will often feels the urge to push before she is completely dilated.  This is a nearly overwhelming urge to bear down, like you're having the biggest bowel movement ever.  If a woman starts to push before she is completely dilated, it could cause the cervix to swell which is obviously counterproductive.   Really forceful pushing against an incompletely dilated cervix can cause the cervix to tear and bleed.  Also, trying to push a baby through the obstruction presented by the cervix tends to not work very well anyway and makes the job much harder.

I believe they put Sheila on bedrest because she was spotting early in the pregnancy, it's been a few years since I've seen the episode, let me know if that's not right. Back in that time, they thought bedrest might prevent miscarriages, but it actually doesn't.  Anyway, she eventually stopped spotting, so the bedrest was discontinued. Nowadays, we've discovered that bedrest is almost never helpful, and in fact can be harmful and it wouldn't be prescribed to prevent miscarriages or a lot of other complications.  I haven't put a patient on bedrest in literally decades.  No sex, no strenuous activity, sometimes; but not bedrest.

[elle]

From an article on BBC.com

An appeal by The New York Times asking readers to share experiences of petty crime in London backfired - when it was hijacked by sarcastic Brits.

The ever delightful Stephen McGann joined in with a response.

[jpgr]

Me this morning: Oh yay, there's a Call the Midwife rerun on while I'm getting ready for work. I'll leave it on in the background.... Twenty-five minutes later, I realize I got sucked into the show, I'm running late, and there's no way I can put on my eye makeup now because I'm weepy (Barbara is dying in this episode - I always liked her, but I love Phyllis and she's so devastated it's killing me!). 

[debraran]

On 4/4/2019 at 11:32 AM, jpgr said:

Me this morning: Oh yay, there's a Call the Midwife rerun on while I'm getting ready for work. I'll leave it on in the background.... Twenty-five minutes later, I realize I got sucked into the show, I'm running late, and there's no way I can put on my eye makeup now because I'm weepy (Barbara is dying in this episode - I always liked her, but I love Phyllis and she's so devastated it's killing me!). 

I thought that was done very well, I always found Tom kind of "wooden" but he did well in this episode showing emotion and Phyllis was heartbreaking. I loved how he started the prayer and she finished it. ; (   Later in another show/scene with Barbara's sweater gave me pause too.

[JeanneH]

Not quite sure if this is the right place for this...

What with the new Sussex baby apparently having been born at home, I cam across an article that talks about what goes into a home birth in modern times, and what is and isn't available in a home birth setting that is for a hospital birth. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.
Royal baby: What is it like to have a home birth?

[doodlebug]

On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 12:52 PM, JeanneH said:

Not quite sure if this is the right place for this...

What with the new Sussex baby apparently having been born at home, I cam across an article that talks about what goes into a home birth in modern times, and what is and isn't available in a home birth setting that is for a hospital birth. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.
Royal baby: What is it like to have a home birth?

Of course, if baby Sussex was born at home, there probably would've been a virtual hospital set up there.  Queen Elizabeth gave birth to all of her kids at various palaces and rumor has it, at least Charles was born by cesarean, done at the palace.  Elizabeth's father, King George VI, had part of his lung removed for cancer in a surgery done at Buckingham palace.

[proserpina65]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

And I agree that it's a fact that some women will always seek out abortions, sometimes with terrible consequences for the mother. That's a fact, but emphasizing that fact is definitely a pro-choice viewpoint.

I think it's not so much a pro-choice viewpoint as much as it's a pragmatic viewpoint.  Abortion being illegal does not stop abortion at all.  A woman who seeks an abortion will get one no matter what.  Criminalizing abortion only makes it dangerous.  Which was the point of the storyline, not that it should/should not be illegal, but that it will happen anyway.

[JudyObscure]

50 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Backstreet abortions don't end well for the fetus either.

Sorry, but it matters that abortion being illegal does not end abortion at all.  That's what this storyline was about.

You sound like you think the fetus lives if it's a legal operation.

True, making abortion illegal doesn't end abortion, making drunk driving illegal didn't end drunk driving, making shop lifting illegal didn't end shop lifting.  I don't see the logic behind the, "Because some people don't obey a law, we should get rid of it" argument.  

I'm pro-choice because I think the decision to abort is a personal one that, ideally,  should be decided between the mother and the father, possibly  with advice from a doctor, but I don't know exactly when life begins.  To me it's probably when the fetus can live apart from the mother. 

Other people think differently and believe life begins when the sperm joins with the egg.  I respect that opinion and understand why those people would consider the life of the fetus as equally important with the life of the mother and so would not want to sanction the process of abortion by making it illegal, even if it still happens.

What would make a real difference would be more emphasis on birth control, with free clinics readily available and education about the importance of women taking control of their own reproductive ability.  Women who seek abortions are women who failed to do that effectively and that seems to be something we aren't allowed to say as we make them the innocent victim in all this, pretending they had no agency in getting pregnant at the same time we fight for their right to have agency over their bodies after the fact.

[proserpina65]

8 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

You sound like you think the fetus lives if it's a legal operation.

That is nothing like what I said.

I agree that free birth control makes a huge difference in reducing abortions, something criminalizing it does not do.  In fact, we saw Valerie and Trixie trying to help Dr. Turner arrange resources for unmarried women to have birth control information earlier in this season.  We also saw the nuns, or at least Sister Julienne, seeming to oppose the idea.  I imagine it will be something further explored next season.

But, and this is a big but, no form of birth control is 100% effective.  The one woman who died as a result of the illegal abortion, Trixie's friend, was using a diaphragm but didn't realize she needed it resized after giving birth.  So saying that women who seek abortions are women who didn't take control of their reproductive ability effectively is not the whole story.

And I realize we aren't going to agree on the subject, so I'm just going to leave it there.

Edited May 22, 2019 by proserpina65

[rhys]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

What would make a real difference would be more emphasis on birth control, with free clinics readily available and education about the importance of women taking control of their own reproductive ability.  Women who seek abortions are women who failed to do that effectively and that seems to be something we aren't allowed to say as we make them the innocent victim in all this, pretending they had no agency in getting pregnant at the same time we fight for their right to have agency over their bodies after the fact.

I hope I am misreading your post, so please correct me. I'm curious about the last line above. TIA

[doodlebug]

6 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

What would make a real difference would be more emphasis on birth control, with free clinics readily available and education about the importance of women taking control of their own reproductive ability.  Women who seek abortions are women who failed to do that effectively and that seems to be something we aren't allowed to say as we make them the innocent victim in all this, pretending they had no agency in getting pregnant at the same time we fight for their right to have agency over their bodies after the fact.

That would only be the case if there was a 100% foolproof method of contraception.  There are plenty of women and men who do make the effort to prevent an unplanned pregnancy and, yet, still get pregnant.  Abstinence is the only 100% method and I don't think anyone needs an explanation as to why that isn't going to work over the long term.

There are also people who do not believe that life begins at conception and see nothing wrong with ending an unwanted pregnancy.  If a woman doesn't feel abortion is immoral, than it is hard to blame her for having one even if it is illegal.

There's also the fact that stuff happens; people get drunk, they're tired, they're caught up in the moment; sometimes human beings just don't use good judgment.  If would be great if everyone was completely careful in their use of contraception every single time, but very few couples are able to maintain such control.  

I also disagree with the idea that it is the woman's fault if they don't use contraception or if their contraception fails.  It takes 2 and the guy has responsibility to at least ask what the woman is using and use a condom himself if pregnancy is not desired.

And all of this only refers to consensual relationships; there are plenty of women who didn't have a choice in the matter for whatever reason.

I am an OB/GYN with 33 years in practice.  The youngest pregnant person I ever saw was 10.  That is not a typo, she didn't understand what a period was nor did her 17 year old brother ask her consent before raping her.  Thank God her teacher noticed something and followed up. That's an extreme example but the world is full of them even if we don't want to think about it.

I don't think every woman in this situation is an innocent victim, but I think there are far more shades of gray than black and white when it comes to unplanned pregnancy.

Edited May 23, 2019 by doodlebug

[debraran]

19 hours ago, doodlebug said:

That would only be the case if there was a 100% foolproof method of contraception.  There are plenty of women and men who do make the effort to prevent an unplanned pregnancy and, yet, still get pregnant.  Abstinence is the only 100% method and I don't think anyone needs an explanation as to why that isn't going to work over the long term.

There are also people who do not believe that life begins at conception and see nothing wrong with ending an unwanted pregnancy.  If a woman doesn't feel abortion is immoral, than it is hard to blame her for having one even if it is illegal.

There's also the fact that stuff happens; people get drunk, they're tired, they're caught up in the moment; sometimes human beings just don't use good judgment.  If would be great if everyone was completely careful in their use of contraception every single time, but very few couples are able to maintain such control.  

I also disagree with the idea that it is the woman's fault if they don't use contraception or if their contraception fails.  It takes 2 and the guy has responsibility to at least ask what the woman is using and use a condom himself if pregnancy is not desired.

And all of this only refers to consensual relationships; there are plenty of women who didn't have a choice in the matter for whatever reason.

I am an OB/GYN with 33 years in practice.  The youngest pregnant person I ever saw was 10.  That is not a typo, she didn't understand what a period was nor did her 17 year old brother ask her consent before raping her.  Thank God her teacher noticed something and followed up. That's an extreme example but the world is full of them even if we don't want to think about it.

I don't think every woman in this situation is an innocent victim, but I think there are far more shades of gray than black and white when it comes to unplanned pregnancy.

My OB told me of a woman who had one ovary and tubes tied (maybe when not done as well) and got pregnant many years later. Sometimes things just happen.

I'm pro choice but wouldn't mind if late term abortions were banned. Pro Life groups will have women who were raped talk about how they kept the baby, husband welcomed it, some gave it up etc and you are in awe of the strength but many are also afraid if religious so it's never usually totally not conflicted. I also remember reading about a woman describe how awful it was to be raped and have everyone for most of her pregnancy ask her about it, strangers comment, other expectant moms will strike up conversations, you are exposed in a way that others carrying those scars are in a different way.. Later, the scars from birth, maybe a C - section, the stretchmarks and other physical signs were also an assault to her, emotionally devastating. It doubled her pain and I pray for anyone who is vulnerable to abuse to get the help they need and not be judged. I can't judge anyone, and listening to both sides, you can emphasize with women and their choices but never should not feel their pain. To gloss it over makes your argument weaker but we aren't black and white, we are a lot of grey.

I like Call the Midwife for the grey.

Edited May 23, 2019 by debraran

[JudyObscure]

I'll admit my statement was too harsh, sorry, too much coffee.

 Of course women can use birth control responsibly and be that one in a hundred, (or one in a  thousand) who had it fail for them.  My point was that I think  birth control is underemphasized and according to the Guttmacher statistical report of reasons why people get abortions:

1% of women said they were aborting because they were raped.

Less than .05% of women gave the reason because of incest

And yet we hear those rare reasons so often we overlook the rest, many of whom are using abortion as their only form of birth control. 

Yes, It's a grey area and many women who seek abortions have very good reasons, but rape, incest and dire poverty are definitely  not the reason in majority of cases as the Pro-choice movement tries to imply -- and that weakens our argument.

8 hours ago, doodlebug said:

There's also the fact that stuff happens; people get drunk, they're tired, they're caught up in the moment; sometimes human beings just don't use good judgment

8 hours ago, doodlebug said:

I also disagree with the idea that it is the woman's fault if they don't use contraception or if their contraception fails.  It takes 2 and the guy has responsibility to at least ask what the woman is using and use a condom himself if pregnancy is not desired.

That's exactly why I think women should take responsibility for the birth control.  Women have methods that are 99.9% effective that can be used in the sober light of day, while men only have condoms which are susceptible to all the conditions you named.

[doodlebug]

2 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

That's exactly why I think women should take responsibility for the birth control.  Women have methods that are 99.9% effective that can be used in the sober light of day, while men only have condoms which are susceptible to all the conditions you named.

Just a comment:  there is NO method of birth control other than a hysterectomy, that is 99.9% effective.  IUD's and Implants, because they remove a lot of the possibility of human error, still have a failure rate of 1% per year of use.  So do tubal ligations. The failure rate of even the best methods is not inconsequential over a lifetime.

I do agree, though, that many, if not most, women who choose abortion were either not using contraception at all or were knowingly using it incorrectly.  While I don't agree with their choice to use abortion as their primary method if only because it is overall far more expensive and more likely to affect their overall health; but I don't see how in a free society, we can deny women the option.  

I agree that late-term abortion should be banned or only allowed in extreme circumstances.  Interestingly, it almost never happens in real life because the vast majority of people who perform them only do them in compelling circumstances.  The politicians who claim that babies are being aborted at full term because the woman changed her mind about having a baby for her own convenience are lying.  Amongst other things, even a termination requires removing a 7 lb baby from the woman's body, how exactly does that happen except via inducing labor or performing a cesarean? 

The anti-abortion contingent was all over outlawing 'partial birth' abortions which almost never happen at term and pretending they were common while there have never been more than a couple thousand a year done out of a million or so procedures and most of them were performed in the second trimester after it was discovered the baby had a severe birth defect incompatible with life.   I don't know how I can tell a woman carrying a child with anencephaly or other fatal defect that she must continue the pregnancy to term and wait for labor, all the while knowing that her baby would die.

Edited May 23, 2019 by doodlebug

[JudyObscure]

I agree that we can't make these decisions for other women and why I have always voted pro-choice.

ETA the NHS lists the  IUD and the implant as "more than 99% effective, " and the Planned Parenthood site says the IUD is 99.9% effective

Edited May 23, 2019 by JudyObscure

[doodlebug]

7 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I agree that we can't make these decisions for other women and why I have always voted pro-choice.

ETA the NHS lists the  IUD and the implant as "more than 99% effective, " and the Planned Parenthood site says the IUD is 99.9% effective

The manufacturer of the Mirena IUD says it is 99.3% effective.  So, not 99% but not 99.9% either.  There are somewhere around 4.4 million women in the US using an IUD currently.  With a failure rate of .07%, that's about 3000 women a year using the most reliable method out there who are still getting pregnant.  It is not very many, but it is not nothing, either.

[rhys]

I recently saw an ad on tv for an implant that goes in the upper arm that lasts 3 years. I can't recall the name or rate of failure but that would be a great option for a lot of women who can tolerate hormones I suspect.

i loved the way my O B did my ligation: cuts, knots, burns! She was thorough!

[doodlebug]

On 5/25/2019 at 5:20 PM, rhys said:

I recently saw an ad on tv for an implant that goes in the upper arm that lasts 3 years. I can't recall the name or rate of failure but that would be a great option for a lot of women who can tolerate hormones I suspect.

i loved the way my O B did my ligation: cuts, knots, burns! She was thorough!

It’s called a Nexplanon and is over 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. It contains progesterone only like the Depo provera injection or the mini-pill.  Biggest drawback is that a goodly number of women will have irregular bleeding, and,  unlike other methods, it isn’t easily treated and continues as long as the implant is present and doesn’t taper off. Not great as far as patient satisfaction goes.  There is no way to predict whether a woman will be prone to bleeding issues before it is inserted either.

[alexvillage]

I am going to ask here. I am in the US but English is not my first language. In the show everyone refers to the babies without the article as in: "I can see baby's head", "Baby's heart is a little slow". I never heard this in my many years here so, is this something from the time period, or a Great Britain thing? Is it the same in countries like Canada and Australia, where the written English follow the British spelling?

[craziness]

I assumed it was because usually they wouldn't know the gender of the baby until it is born. 

[dargosmydaddy]

I think allexvillage was asking why they always leave "the" out. I'm not British, but having watched a lot of British shows, I think it's a British thing and not a time period thing. They also say "going to hospital" instead of "going to the hospital," and "have concussion" instead of "have a concussion."

Having watched a lot of Canadian TV, too, I don't think they do that. Not sure about Australia.

[Hooper]

Quote

Having watched a lot of Canadian TV, too, I don't think they do that. Not sure about Australia.

Well, my Canadian friends talk about going on holiday and going to university, so I think it's just the  'Merican version of the English language that insists on sticking articles in front of every noun.  I have a colleague who grew up in India but learned English English and went to University in Great Britain before migrating to the US.  He would always ask me to proof read any important letters or papers he wrote because, although he was an excellent writer, he could never master which nouns required the use of an article.  And I could never explain it because I can't say that I can figure out any consistent rule either.

[purist]

1 hour ago, Hooper said:

Well, my Canadian friends talk about going on holiday and going to university, so I think it's just the  'Merican version of the English language that insists on sticking articles in front of every noun. 

Australian English is the same as Canadian English in these examples, so I agree with your comment about American English. Both Australia and (parts of) Canada were colonised by the British, so it makes sense.

I *think* many Australians probably used to use 'baby' in the way they do on CTM, but it's less common today.

Edited May 18, 2020 by purist

[caitmcg]

I think the “baby is” example is probably a more period-specific thing and doesn’t entirely equate to the other examples. Granted, Americans say “to the hospital” or “in the hospital”, but we also say we’re going “on vacation“ and are “in college”, and mean them the same way Brits or Australians do when they say “on holiday“ or “in university”, thanks to vocabulary differences. After all, we say “in college“ regardless of whether the institution is officially a college or university in the American sense, but those things don’t always have the same meanings in other countries (in the US a college grants certificates or two- or four-year undergraduate degrees, but only universities also grant graduate degrees).

Edited May 18, 2020 by caitmcg

[purist]

4 hours ago, caitmcg said:

“in college”, and mean them the same way Brits or Australians do when they say “on holiday“ or “in university”

Australians say 'at university' (or, more usually, 'at uni' - pronounced 'YOO-nee'). I love talking about language differences!

[alexvillage]

Thank you all. I love language quirks and maybe because English is not my first language, I am always curious about the differences in countries that speak the language.

[JudyObscure]

On 5/23/2019 at 5:40 PM, doodlebug said:

The manufacturer of the Mirena IUD says it is 99.3% effective.  So, not 99% but not 99.9% either.  There are somewhere around 4.4 million women in the US using an IUD currently.  With a failure rate of .07%, that's about 3000 women a year using the most reliable method out there who are still getting pregnant.  It is not very many, but it is not nothing, either.

It's not nothing, but it is surprising how many women fall into that .07%  so that  we have about 40% of babies born outside of marriage.  If the woman has an IUD or is on the pill and adds a barrier method the odds would be even smaller but I imagine the 40% would somehow stay the same.