If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Leslie
writes I think some of the problem for the pro-life side comes when they are asked to allow things that in their opinion are morally wrong. For example, some people--maybe a lot of people--might think RU486 is a good idea because the abortions would be so early and theoretically less awful for the baby than surgical abortions. But when you are basing your objection to abortion on the belief that a life is a life from conception onward, you CAN'T compromise in that way. I can entirely understand that. What bothers me is when pro-lifers aren't honest about the reason _why_ they're against something like that. So, there's been all sorts of spin from the pro-life groups about how risky RU486 supposedly is, how horrible and traumatic it is for women - and they really twist the evidence to make these claims. My feeling is, if you're against RU486 because you're against abortion generally, why not just be honest and _say_ so, instead of dressing it up with a lot of other reasons? (This was not aimed at Leslie, even if she reads this - just something I've noticed a lot of from other pro-life quarters.) All the best, Sarah -- "I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Nan
writes On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:08:30 -0800, "Circe" scribbled: I agree, it is sad. But I think it is equally sad that boys/men aren't raised to recognize that an unplanned pregnancy is (or at least can be) as great a problem for *them* as it is for the girl/woman. I almost agree. The real truth, imo is that girls/women are affected moreso. The father can reduce himself to a walking checkbook if he chooses, and the girl is left holding the entire bag. The other side of that is that a man who _wants_ to be more than a walking chequebook may well have a very difficult time doing so. There are a lot of men out there who would love to be more involved with their children but find they just can't do so because the mother's being obstructive. That's something else that a man might well find worth thinking about if he's considering unprotected sex (or even protected sex, since condoms aren't perfect). Of course, those teenage boys probably weren't that gung-ho about the idea of fatherhood, but it's worth thinking about the whole issue of what it would be like to know there is a child of yours out there that you aren't being allowed to see or become involved with. All the best, Sarah -- "I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Leslie
writes Barbara said: I'm not particularly convinced that girls are all that easily coerced by boys into having abortions. I suspect that for those girls who aren't comfortable with the decision generally but have an abortion anyway, keeping their parents from finding out that they were both having sex *and* got pregnant is a stronger factor than what the boy wants, particularly if the two are not involved in an ongoing romantic relationship. The research I've done on the subject showed that coercion by the partner or the parents was a very frequent reason for abortion. In David Reardon's post abortion trauma studies, almost all the women would have preferred to have the baby if they had felt supported. That doesn't say anything much about how often this happens, since David Reardon, as I recall, bases his studies on women who have already declared themselves to regret their abortions bitterly - which, according to other research, is a pretty small percentage of all women who have abortions. However, to go back to the point that was being made, I'm sceptical as to whether outlawing abortion would make a difference to this. After all, making abortion illegal isn't magically going to turn an emotionally unsupportive partner into a supportive one. It'll hopefully make it more difficult for him to push her towards abortion (in most cases, anyway - not all, since making abortion illegal wouldn't make it vanish), but it won't really solve the problems of women who are feeling alone and abandoned by their partners at this time. All the best, Sarah -- "I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Leslie
writes Barbara said: I realize that. But I can't remotely see how Catholics will ever get all people in the culture to agree to eliminating both abortion and all methods of birth control other than NFP. You want to talk about a population explosion! I don't think that's on the Catholic agenda, at least not that I've heard. We'd just be happy if we could get our own members to conform to the teaching. I'd certainly like to see NFP in more widespread use--I've found it really neat to see how many people on this ng use it for non-religious reasons. I will also say that one of the reasons the pro-life/pro-choice debate is so bitter is this very fact. Certain elements of the pro-life movement are not interested merely in preventing/stopping abortions, but in preventing/stopping people from using other forms of birth control. I frankly find that quite chilling. Honestly, I don't know about that, other than Catholics wanting other Catholics to conform to Church teaching. I don't care in the least what kinds of bc non-Catholics use! I think practically all Catholics would probably feel the same way (for that matter, lots of them probably don't even care that much whether other Catholics conform), but I do know what Barbara's talking about. The anti-artificial-birth-control position was something I did tend to run across back in the days when I was debating on talk.abortion - it was only a tiny minority of extremists, but they were there, and, unfortunately, they were strident. All the best, Sarah -- "I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Leslie
writes I know you won't agree, but I firmly believe in the inherent connection between sex and babies, and as long as there is no 100% way of preventing contraception, I don't think anyone, married or not, should have sex if they aren't prepared to deal with the natural consequence of a baby. I once read a magazine article about a couple who actually tried abstinence as a way of preventing pregnancy, since they'd had one contraceptive failure and were not at all in a position to have another baby at that point. They kept it up for months. It put a terrible strain on their marriage during that time, and there did eventually come the night when they'd had a couple of drinks at a party, lost their inhibitions, fell into bed together, and ended up with another pregnancy that they weren't really in a position to deal with. No, it's not impossible for a couple to remain abstinent for huge chunks - or all - of their married life. But it strikes me as a huge thing to ask. So the problem I have with the "Well, don't have sex unless you're potentially prepared to deal with a baby" attitude is that, while it can work fine for people who already want several kids and feel that having one more than expected, or sooner than expected, isn't really an insurmountable problem, it's just not that simple for people who either don't want kids at all, or are just not in a position to have them right then for whatever reason. For people in that situation, that attitude can get perilously close to an attitude that thinks of children as a price that you have to pay for having sex. And _that_ isn't something I find terribly appropriate, personally. [...] Still, I don't think asking them to wait until they are out of high school is an impossible dream, either. I just think they have to have to proper foundation laid in advance. I don't think it's an impossible dream to expect some, even many, teenagers to wait, but I _do_ think it's an impossible dream to expect that they all will. More to the point, I think it's unrealistic to feel that just because they do wait that long, the problems of sex are going to go away. I do realise that this isn't at all what you were saying, but it's something that seems to me to be inherent in the whole attitude of "We expect you to wait until X age." I don't want to bring my children up to wait until X age, because the other side of that coin is an implication that once you hit X age, well, that's OK, then. And I just don't think a particular age or graduation ceremony is what we should be looking at here in terms of when sex is OK. What I want to teach my children is "It is your responsibility to think about when sex is OK for you and when it isn't. It is your responsibility to think about whether you've protected yourself against unwanted pregnancy and against infection. It is your responsibility to think about how you would cope with a pregnancy if one occurred in spite of contraception. It is your responsibility to think about whether you're doing this for the right reasons - is it because you really want to do it and feel comfortable with the idea, or is it because you're feeling pressurised by your partner or your friends? And it is your responsibility to recognise when sex might _not_ be a responsible decision in a particular situation, and to abstain from it if so." A teenager who actually sticks to that probably is going to remain abstinent during school days, and possibly for longer - but I would not want to say categorically that there are no school-age teens out there mature enough to deal with those problems and go ahead and have sex responsibly. I dated my husband for three hours, Long-distance relationship, speedy relationship of all time, or typo? ;-) All the best, Sarah -- "I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Leslie
writes Barbara wrote: But you know, I had several sexual relationships before I met my husband and got married (I'm sure this won't come as a shock to my mother, who reads this newsgroup!) and I am not sorry that I did. I think those relationships, with their partial successes and partial failures, were what allowed me to ultimately choose the right man to marry. I'm not at all sure that preventing myself from experiencing the full gamut of an intimate adult relationship before I got married would have been a GoodThink(TM). There are probably studies on that too, but I don't have the emotional energy to look for them right now. :-) I KNOW I've read ones that say cohabiting couples have higher divorce rates than those who did NOT cohabit. That sounds like the kind of thing where proving cause and effect is almost impossible, for various reasons. To take one obvious example, there's going to be a high correlation between people who think divorce is wrong and people who think cohabitation is wrong, so presumably a group of married couples who didn't previously cohabit would have a higher percentage of people who were against divorce and would struggle on in an unhappy relationship where other people would get divorced in the same circumstances. (Of course, whether you consider that a good or a bad thing is a different matter.) Also, of course, sexual relationship != cohabitation. I've had sexual relationships before this one as well, but DH was the first person I cohabited with. Both decisions (to be sexually active before marriage, to cohabit with DH before marrying) were ones that have worked for me personally. Not to say that they'd be right for everyone, but I would be very wary of a sex ed programme that tried to teach that there was just one right way of doing things that would lead on to a fulfilling life. All the best, Sarah -- "I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
"Christine" Children are frequently born prematurely and,although rare, can survive as early as 5 month of gestation. Kerry supports the killing of a fetus that has grown during 8 months of pregnancy. I feel the rights of a nearly born child are more important than the rights of a sexually irresponsible woman. Bush did not oppose abortions, only late term abortions performed for "research" purposes. Really? I thought that Bush has a lineage of 50 or so women ready to give their almost born babies for ste(a)m cell research... Anne from dumbkistan How can you not support him? `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ` Wow, I just don't get how people are actually in support of him. I guess if you enjoy living in a country on a course of destruction. Dedicated to smashing gays, eradicating woman's rights, |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Query : Late Period | Kazh | Pregnancy | 20 | July 26th 04 04:31 PM |
Ashley's Birth Story (a bit late) LONG | kandie s | Pregnancy | 3 | May 16th 04 05:53 PM |
How do you manage late pregnancy exams? | Shelly | Pregnancy | 24 | January 24th 04 01:58 AM |
being late | Robyn Kozierok | General (moderated) | 27 | September 2nd 03 02:09 PM |
Too late to correct a bad latch? | ted | Breastfeeding | 5 | July 11th 03 08:58 PM |