here we go again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKPassey

Fine. But in that case, an external ultrasound will give an adequate image. To mandate a transvaginal ultrasound for this purpose is nothing more or less than intimidation - it really does feel very akin to rape to have this test, very invasive and highly uncomfortable as well.

---

Perhaps, but I'm guessing it's not as invasive as the actual abortion. Plus, as I understand it, the external version is not as accurate for early pregnancies, which is a moot point since the transvaginal ultrasound is not actually required by legislation the OP posted about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

You *do* realize that farming represents a rather complex and diverse realm of knowledge?

There seems to be some sort of assumption that farming is "lesser" somehow than, say, yoga instructing... My own farming, which is only a handful of crops, is quite challenging, managing an entire farmstead would require all sorts of skills and knowledge and experience. Especially if done in a sustainable, permaculturish fashion.



Almost every Amish person I have met spoke multiple languages, generally English and at least one German dialect. I suspect they are more multi-lingual than your average "main stream" American. I was raised in a German-speaking household myself, and our Amish neighbors understood my German, their own German dialect, and English.

Sitting around a table with Amish folks, you'd figure this sort of thing out.

---

I never said farming was a lesser career choice. Once again, you are 'paraphrasing me' to what you THINK I said. But, if that is the only choice...

If this were an agriculture society, then farming would represent a larger percentage of career choice. But it's not. This is America, a modern, progressive, technologically advanced country with many many career choices. Farming represents a very small percentage of the choice. Saying that doesn't denegrat farming, it just puts it in perspective.

What I don't understand is how you, an apparently well educated, progressive, well traveled person would advocate 'keeping hem down on the farm'. How is it that you, who apparently has educated your daughter to embrace the world with no limits, and encourage her to go for it with your full support, would advocate limiting these kids, who live in THE SAME WORLD AS YOUR DAUGHTER, AND ARE SMART ENOUGH TO NOTICE?

We aren't talking about some primitive tribe in deepest darkest jungle somewhere. We are talking about American kids who live here, now, in this country. What if this were simply a group of parents, not 'The Amish', who pulled their kids out of school at 13 to work on the farm. (Actually I do know many older folks who faced just this, none of whom thought it was to their advantage!). How would you feel about that? Would you wonder about these kids future opportunities? Would you be outraged at parents who severely limited their kids futures. These are American kids. Americans, in the 21st century.

Simplicity in life and actions, as a choice, is admirable. I certainly think it is. But it kind of loses its warm, fuzzy luster when it is a 'choice' through a simple lack of other choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKPassey

Fine. But in that case, an external ultrasound will give an adequate image. To mandate a transvaginal ultrasound for this purpose is nothing more or less than intimidation - it really does feel very akin to rape to have this test, very invasive and highly uncomfortable as well.

---

Requiring an unnecessary procedure to 'educate' the apparently ignorant woman is invasive, no matter how it is conducted. It is invasive of her body and invasive of her intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Perhaps, but I'm guessing it's not as invasive as the actual abortion. Plus, as I understand it, the external version is not as accurate for early pregnancies, which is a moot point since the transvaginal ultrasound is not actually required by legislation the OP posted about.

---

Alan, I do understand most of your positions here, and I agree with many of them. Also appreciate the thoughtful approach you've taken.

Your conclusion here is logical, but not completely accurate. The original legislation as proposed in VA, and in other states, did specifically mandate the T-V ultrasound - it was the outcry that caused it to be modified before the vote. In the spirit of clarification (not one-upmanship), I'd like to say this about the procedures: I've had both (D&C to remove polyps, rather than a pregnancy, identical procedure). The T-V ultrasound was much, much more invasive. For a rape victim, despite the professionalism and support of the techs, it's difficult to bear. At my age, after multiple childbirths, and a lifetime of problems with that system, most exams are "no biggie," but even though I willingly consented to it as a necessary diagnostic procedure, it was still distressing. Many older women, like my mother, simply refuse to have it - it's too sexual. I put it off for quite some time despite a truly difficult medical condition, precisely because the exam is so invasive. I had flashbacks during this exam. The actual procedure afterwards was by comparison a piece of cake - it resembles the annual PAP test more than anything, just longer. Sedation and anesthesia are also availble for the procedure, but not for the exam. I can't imagine how it would be to have been forced to have this exam, not because it was medically necessary, but because someone else wanted to control my decision-making.

As to the accuracy issue, that's a valid point - but it should be a medical decision made between the woman and her doctor specific to her circumstances, not legally mandated for the sole purpose of "helping" a woman to make a different decision, or intimidating her into doing somebody's "the right thing."

If a child is conceived in violence or coersion - and many are - it's simply further violence to put barriers in the woman's way to making her own decision how to deal with it. I favor fewer abortions, but this isn't the way to go about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

...
I'm stymied by the ludicrousness of it as well.

---

I am as pro abortion as anyone, and as supportive on the far end continuum scale of life as anyone here, but I agree with you that there is an odd lack of balance on this website. It's IS ludicrous that no one speaks of the other lifeform, for lack of a better term, that looses in the abortion deal. There is a baby/zygote/mass of human cells/a life or whatever term you want to use, that is wiped out.

It just seems dishonest to me, and tone deaf. But you really cannot expect balance here on this site, now you know better.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

What I don't understand is how you, an apparently well educated, progressive, well traveled person would advocate....

---

I'm not though, am I?

It is you who are putting these words in my mouth, and engaging in sophistry.

Which is not conducive to honest and open communication.

TTFN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

I am as pro abortion as anyone, and as supportive on the far end continuum scale of life as anyone here, but I agree with you that there is an odd lack of balance on this website. It's IS ludicrous that no one speaks of the other lifeform, for lack of a better term, that looses in the abortion deal. There is a baby/zygote/mass of human cells/a life or whatever term you want to use, that is wiped out.

It just seems dishonest to me, and tone deaf. But you really cannot expect balance here on this site, now you know better.;)

---

An odd lack of balance? I am confused by this... This is a private forum of personal expression, so ya get what ya get. And, I've not noticed any lack of folks speaking their minds here! if you want another perspective to be expressed, I think it's up to you.

I really didn't see many people arguing that abortion is great (IMO anyone not AT THE VERY LEAST using barrier methods who isn't planning on therefore raising a kid is insane) but noone was arguing the banning abortion position if that's what you mean. When you talk about reducing abortions, adoption might play a small part, but your mostly talking about birth control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Thank you LC. You have put in words exactly my concern. I think these folks are closer to your example of the fundamentalist family than the hip, modern, savvy, connected people zoe keeps trying to convince us they are. I find limited opportunity for young people sad for them as well as any disadvantaged youth.

---

Assuming you are correct and the Amish are a fundamentalist family rather than a hip, modern....people, what's wrong with that? I have philosophical or religous differences with many people, but I try not to discriminate against or judge them as long as their choices don't impact me or others in a negative way. Live and let live.

Besides, the Amish guys build pole barns much cheaper than the other contractors. :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

I really didn't see many people arguing that abortion is great (IMO anyone not AT THE VERY LEAST using barrier methods who isn't planning on therefore raising a kid is insane) but noone was arguing the banning abortion position if that's what you mean. When you talk about reducing abortions, adoption might play a small part, but your mostly talking about birth control.

---

If someone isn't using birth control, I agree they better be ready for a kid. I'm all for birth control and my experience has been that most youth in public school know where babies come from and can obtain birth control at little or no cost (condoms aren't expensive).

I've read some comments on this forum that seem to support the notion that birth control is not easily or cheaply available. I was always able to go into a gas station and buy them. Not that difficult or expensive.

With regard to pregnancies resulting from rape, do you have any idea what % of abortions that would be? My suspicion (which could be proven wrong) is that the % of abortions from rape is quite low.

In my ethical framework, early term abortions from rape, danger to the mother, and/or a child that will not survive are much more in the gray zone than say a late term abortion because the parents didn't engage in adequate family planning. I suspect (and hope) those late term situations are the exception rather than the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKPassey

Fine. But in that case, an external ultrasound will give an adequate image. To mandate a transvaginal ultrasound for this purpose is nothing more or less than intimidation - it really does feel very akin to rape to have this test, very invasive and highly uncomfortable as well.

---

i once worked at a crisis pregnancy center (free pregnancy tests, help with parenting classes, baby clothes, doc visits) They got an ultrasound machine and gave people the choice to see it. you do NOT have to use a vaginal ultrasound to see the baby. Most who see it choose to not abort. In any other situation people demand that women "be informed!!!" ..but in this case.....people seem to prefer "ignorance is bliss". Pretend it doesnt look like a baby and call it a zygote. Of course the ultrasounds show otherwise which leads to a dilemna for those who are abortion minded. Its a fully formed baby with a beating heart that is often aborted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

And maybe that is the crux. The right of some to dictate the choices of others. On the one hand, many think it perfectly all right that if an adult woman becomes pregnant ,either from failure of contraception, even rape, etc., although said woman has free access to all information about pregnancy and childbirth, she should be forced to......... Undergo counseling, wait for 24-48 hours, undergo an invasive probing of her vagina, complete with showing her the pictures of the zygote, complete with listening to its heartbeat, in order for her not to make a "wrong" choice, etc. Yet many of the same people who want to make sure women have ALL the information before they choose to complete a pregnancy, seem cheerfully willing for large numbers of already born children to make important choices that will affect their entire lives after being systematically prevented from experiences and knowledge THEY would need to make an actual informed decision.

Maybe it the ludicrous quality of this that stymies me.

---

To make an INFORMED choice maybe they need to see what it is they are carrying inside them. And no you do not have to use a vaginal ultrasound. INFORMED means just that..informed. What if a woman has an abortion without being informed and later comes across a picture of an ultrasound of the perfectly formed baby she has aborted? How do you think she feels then?

poetry_writer: "...without being informed.." you're not her mommy or daddy. A woman, or man, get to make their own decisions in their lives. Whether they are happy with their decisions or regret their decisions, that's all on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lainey

poetry_writer: "...without being informed.." you're not her mommy or daddy. A woman, or man, get to make their own decisions in their lives. Whether they are happy with their decisions or regret their decisions, that's all on them.

---

Indeed it is all on them. Thats why it needs to be a truly informed decision.

Pregnant women know what's inside of us. Doctors can give us whatever information we ask for. Each pregnant woman decides what she wants to know, from whom. It's called privacy & the right to decide for oneself. If a pregnant woman wants a TV ultrasound, she can ask her PCP. If she wants a religious opinion about her pregnancy, she can go to her trusted faith leader.

Maybe these menfolk who are all up in our business, and I mean that as it sounds, need to get legal permission to use their giggle stick when & how they want to. After all, they are half of the baby making process last time I checked.

Seriously time for a Lysistrata.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

I am as pro abortion as anyone, and as supportive on the far end continuum scale of life as anyone here, but I agree with you that there is an odd lack of balance on this website. It's IS ludicrous that no one speaks of the other lifeform, for lack of a better term, that looses in the abortion deal. There is a baby/zygote/mass of human cells/a life or whatever term you want to use, that is wiped out.

---

I am pretty much against abortion as a routine matter of course.

Also, I believe in considering the interests of all parties involved in a moral decision. In this case, both the mother and "fetus".

I'm also perfectly happy calling the "fetus" a "human" or "child" from the very instant of conception, for the sake of argument. And equally considering its interests in any analysis of its fate.

However, I think the mother's interests clearly outweigh those of the child until pretty darned far along in the gestation process, so I'm OK with the mother deciding that abortion is the way to proceed if she wishes. I'm fine with calling it killing, of a human being. It is regrettable IMHO, but not necessarily wrong. And in most cases, I wouldn't presume to decide when exactly it is wrong, or right, that's a decision best left up to the mother.

(Furthermore, I don't see a moral difference that allows me to treat a child's fate differently depending on the circumstances of its conception: rape, incest, birth control failure, unprotected sex, ... Its interests do not hinge on those circumstances, and I think they have no place in the analysis except as a distraction or excuse or rationalization.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

I am pretty much against abortion as a routine matter of course.

Also, I believe in considering the interests of all parties involved in a moral decision. In this case, both the mother and "fetus".

I'm also perfectly happy calling the "fetus" a "human" or "child" from the very instant of conception, for the sake of argument. And equally considering its interests in any analysis of its fate.

However, I think the mother's interests clearly outweigh those of the child until pretty darned far along in the gestation process, so I'm OK with the mother deciding that abortion is the way to proceed if she wishes. I'm fine with calling it killing, of a human being. It is regrettable IMHO, but not necessarily wrong. And in most cases, I wouldn't presume to decide when exactly it is wrong, or right, that's a decision best left up to the mother.

(Furthermore, I don't see a moral difference that allows me to treat a child's fate differently depending on the circumstances of its conception: rape, incest, birth control failure, unprotected sex, ... Its interests do not hinge on those circumstances, and I think they have no place in the analysis except as a distraction or excuse or rationalization.)

---

You are fine with killing you said. What can one say to that?

I know a lot of prochoice people, and I am prochoice myself, but I have never met a single person I would describe as proabortion. Most people in the prochoice group would prefer abortion to be as rare as possible while remaining legal, by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, so it would seem if someone is truly appalled by abortions, they would be moving heaven and earth to prevent unwanted pregnancies themselves. Instead, many seem to put as many obstacles in the way as possible, from depending on abstinence only sex education for teenagers, which has proven to be ineffective, except in early teenaged years, DNA having a strong desire to replicate, and hormones being what they are, and preventing easy access to birth control, family planning education, etc.

Ideally, I think MOST of us, of whatever view, would like to see abortion unnecessary. And the way to reduce abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Why not work together with that for a goal.

It still comes down, poetry_writer, to you wanting women to have a "fully informed" choice, because you have a dog in the hunt and a specific decision that you want to see them make, and seem willing to enlist government into making sure that your view is forcefed those women. Informed choice IMPLIES choice, and women, as adults, are fully able to make their own decisions about informing themselves. They have access to all the information they need or desire without politicians and religious zealots forcing it on them. They don't need (mostly men) passing laws forcing intimidating and unwanted procedures and difficulties between them and their right to make decisions about their own reproductive lives.

To be willing to force unwanted procedures on adult women to make sure they have "all the facts", one must surely want young people in closed, religious sects that prevent them from having full information about the world to have "all the facts", too, so THEY could make informed decisions, right?

If it is the government's place to force information on some, then it must be appropriate for information to be forced upon others. You don't really get to pick and choose. Either you believe in personal freedom or not.

Of course abortion is a serious decision. I've always been grateful that it was a decision I was never forced to have to contemplate, and I've never known women to have taken it lightly. Every woman that I've known who has made the decision to abort considered long and hard, weighed competing rights, their own life situation, etc., and it was a wrenching decision.

You certainly put plenty of words in my mouth loosechicken. In every other situation on the planet you DEMAND women be allowed to be informed. In this one, you shrivel up like its a dirty word. Every woman has to live with the choices she makes. Information is always good. Isnt it? only when you dont want to be informed cause to be so makes you very very uncomfortable. Better to be informed ahead of time than too late, isnt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

You are fine with killing you said. What can one say to that?

---

I agree with everything bae said, that's pretty much my position as well. It is killing, it is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

I agree with everything bae said, that's pretty much my position as well. It is killing, it is what it is.

---

and you also are ok with killing? I find that sick and twisted. You are OK with KILLING. Twisted....unless of course you are saying it for shock value. if not, then its simply sick to say "I find killing ok"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

and you also are ok with killing? I find that sick and twisted. You are OK with KILLING. Twisted

---

You can use whatever labels you like, but I think you knew full well when you entered into this conversation where you would lead it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

...if not, then its simply sick to say "I find killing ok"

---

It is next to impossible to live on this planet without killing.

Even if you limit the discussion to killing of humans, not all killing is murder, sometimes killing is needful. Sometimes killing is even an affirmative moral duty.

That's not "sick and twisted", unless you haven't thought it through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

It is next to impossible to live on this planet without killing.

Even if you limit the discussion to killing of humans, not all killing is murder, sometimes killing is needful. Sometimes killing is even an affirmative moral duty.

That's not "sick and twisted", unless you haven't thought it through.

---

We are talking about humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

You can use whatever labels you like, but I think you knew full well when you entered into this conversation where you would lead it.

---

It led to you saying killing is ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

We are talking about humans.

---

And as I said:

... not all killing is murder, sometimes killing is needful. Sometimes killing is even an affirmative moral duty.

That's not "sick and twisted", unless you haven't thought it through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

It led to you saying killing is ok.

---

Yes, exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

And as I said:

... not all killing is murder, sometimes killing is needful. Sometimes killing is even an affirmative moral duty.

That's not "sick and twisted", unless you haven't thought it through.

---

When is killing a human ok?

So, I am assuming, poetry_writer, that you are against things like our invasion of Iraq, the tens of thousands of little children who have been killed there and in Afghanistan, the death penalty, etc?

As bae says, it is pretty much impossible to go through life without killing, whether it's other forms of life, human life, etc. Heck, having fifty million citizens in this country without access to health insurance probably involves a lot of human life being killed, people dying unnecessarily, etc.

Look at all the little children already born who are abused, and even killed by their parents. Look at the kids that social services, stretched to the max already, let slip through the cracks and who die in miserable surroundings. Try not to waste all your angst on a collection of cells unable to live outside the womb....spend some of that on all the little children dying everywhere, all around you in this world. The ones who are already born.

Wasted effort......going to bed.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

Yes, exactly.

---

going for the shock value ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

So, I am assuming, poetry_writer, that you are against things like our invasion of Iraq, the tens of thousands of little children who have been killed there and in Afghanistan, the death penalty, etc?

As bae says, it is pretty much impossible to go through life without killing, whether it's other forms of life, human life, etc. Heck, having fifty million citizens in this country without access to health insurance probably involves a lot of human life being killed, people dying unnecessarily, etc.

Look at all the little children already born who are abused, and even killed by their parents. Look at the kids that social services, stretched to the max already, let slip through the cracks and who die in miserable surroundings. Try not to waste all your angst on a collection of cells unable to live outside the womb....spend some of that on all the little children dying everywhere, all around you in this world. The ones who are already born.

Wasted effort......going to bed.......

---

Yes time for you to go to bed.. You ramble like a.......chicken out of its pen.....:o)

Jillygal......we've missed ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if their "informed decision" still leads to abortion, then what? Pile on more requirements, longer waiting periods, more "counseling" - what? It's not really about "information" is it?

It's mandatory motherhood you want, and we're getting closer to it every day. See how that worked out in Hungary under Ceauescu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

Jillygal......we've missed ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Yes. I thought you knew who i was. That was a name I used several years ago. And you remembered it. Which i find....well...weird LOL. Very ...weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lainey

And if their "informed decision" still leads to abortion, then what? Pile on more requirements, longer waiting periods, more "counseling" - what? It's not really about "information" is it?

It's mandatory motherhood you want, and we're getting closer to it every day. See how that worked out in Hungary under Ceauescu.

---

There is no reason for "mandatory motherhood". Dont reproduce. Use protection. Use condoms. Use something! And the problem would be avoided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

There is no reason for "mandatory motherhood". Dont reproduce. Use protection. Use condoms. Use something! And the problem would be avoided.

---

Is there some form of contraception that is 100% effective, and usable without nasty side effects by everyone?

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

When is killing a human ok?

---

I bet you can figure it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poetry_writer

There is no reason for "mandatory motherhood". Dont reproduce. Use protection. Use condoms. Use something! And the problem would be avoided.

---

May you never have unintended consequences, or, G-d forbid, accidents, in your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

May you never have unintended consequences, or, G-d forbid, accidents, in your life.

---

and the convo deteriorates into ...nothing...

No mystery, dear. Nothing weird. Only the very limited number of ways you had to riff on "chickens". It is like a little kid whose epithets are limited to "pooh pooh head". Even under another name, when ya hear "pooh pooh head", ya know it's him. O. K., now I really do have to go to bed. G'nite.