See, here I thought it was Mark V. Shaney again.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
Printable View
See, here I thought it was Mark V. Shaney again.Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
Well, subtlety is different than nothing!Quote:
Originally Posted by poetry_writer
I am not damning you. I'm calling you out for inappropriate behavior. I'm not taking issue with you, I'm taking issue with the words that you stated. Likewise, I'm not presuming anything (as this assumes a great deal, and there is actually very little that I'm assuming. I'm taking your words on face-value.)Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
I have. This will be the third time. 115, 117, and now this one.Quote:
Tell me exactly what is ignorant and condescending?
First, you asserted that you felt that the amish were "at worst, regressive." "Regressive" means backwards.
Considering a community backwards -- by using a term that means backwards -- is condescending toward that community.
But, I see from your post here:
I apologize that I did not read/see that. If it is the case (and if you could reference the post that would be helpful, but it is not necessary), then I apologize for continuing on this particular vein after the fact. Assuming that you did reframe (and I'll give the benefit of the doubt rather than having to re-read everything *right now!* to verify it), then I accept this reframing as being closer to your meaning, and that you did not mean to disparage the amish in this way.Quote:
I admitted in a later post that I meant repressive, not regressive, (although regressive simply means opposing progress) {snip}
Second, you also assert that the amish are ignorant and incapable of living in the modern world because of their education -- that they are only capable of washing toilets or waiting tables. You give many examples from books to cultural references to modern technological advances.
But of course, there is ample evidence to the contrary -- which I provided. This evidence demonstrates that
1. the amish are often, and obviously, more educated than 8th grade based on their lifestyles;
2. many amish who choose to join their community have higher education (to qualify for higher education, you have to demonstrate the intelligence and ability to complete the material first, which indicates that they do not lack education, even if it isn't formal after age 13);
3. the amish who choose to not join their community usually seek higher education and/or go into the trades where they already have experience, thus "making it" in the modern world.
You perpetually asserted the opposite -- without providing evidence, and becoming hung up on how you believe shunning is practiced within the culture (despite evidence to the contrary there as well).
When you state that a person is simply too ignorant, uneducated and therefore incapable of living in the modern world -- amish or not -- this is a disparaging statement.
Likewise, I find it condescending to be told to "take a breath" or "sheesh, get a grip!" these are condescending, personal attacks against me, asserting that I both need to calm down and that I do not have a "grip" (on reality). I quoted you in this as well. I also find the accusation that I am not "actually reading your posts!" as personally disparaging.
And example exists in your last post as well:
You have also stated "do you even read what you write?" to me.Quote:
and if you had actually read my posts instead of damning me, you would know that.
I very much take this world online seriously. I take my communication seriously, and I think it is important to carefully read -- to the best of my ability -- other people's posts.
Actually, I have not once called you a name. I have asked you several times to quote me where I have called you names, demonized you, or -- for that matter -- damned you. Feel free to quote me where I have personally attacked you at all.Quote:
You're pretty much the only one calling names here.
I have only asserted that your words were disparaging toward the amish and condescending towards me. I quoted those words and explained my position several times.
You cannot simply 'claim victimhood' here, when there is no evidence of you being a victim of anything.
I will accept the regressive/repressive reframe -- I'm sorry that I didn't catch it before. But so far, you have refused to accept that you have been condescending towards me several times in our communications here. Likewise, you accuse me of being condescending, but do not provide any evidence to this. It seems to me that since you refuse to even deal with these direct quotes of your statements towards me, you have no intention of 'standing by all" of your words.Quote:
I stand by all my words.
We actually disagree here. I thought I was clear in this. I do not think that people need to have the same cultural experiences in order to make their way in that culture's world. I believe that humans are infinitely intelligent and adaptable, regardless of the level of difficulty or the disparity between the person's prior culture and new culture.Quote:
You seem to agree with me that they don't have the cultural references, the background in literature, education, or experience we all share in this MODERN world, which is what I'm talking about. I never said a person can't learn. You INFERED that. I just said an 8th grade education does not prepare you to live successfully in THIS MODERN WORLD. And it doesn't. That isn't denigrating. It's reality. And if your culture doesn't embrace or value education beyond 13, then you are hard pressed to 'go it alone'. I never said some don't. Again, your 'interpretation' of what I said. I just said it was very difficult. And the faster this world speeds ahead, the harder it will be.
And, you speak in absolutes here, too "It just doesn't." --which, again, is condescending because it asserts that any disagreement with your assertion is absolutely wrong and that the other person living in a fantasy, without evidence. But as far as I can tell, so far, the only person to not provide *any* evidence on the topic of the amish thus far is you (with the exception of amish.net, which actually didn't seem to support your post, but that's neither here nor there).
And, most of what you assume has been demonstrated to be false. You assume that the amish don't value education beyond age 13. The reality is that young people are educated -- outside of the traditional education that we might understand and utilize - in ways that their community values (even though you may not value it). And that these young people can and often do go on to higher education, some choosing to stay and some choosing to leave.
These sorts of statements greatly misrepresent the amish -- in both my experience and education, as well as the evidence that I provided to you in prior posts -- and yet you still keep making these statements over and over, with absolutisms such as "And it just doesn't."
Likewise, my inference was a logical inference based on what you had posted.
When a person is asserting their position, their process is to assert evidence that leads to specific inferences and outcomes. The idea is that the writer (or communicator if one is communicating orally or what have you) is providing evidence in such a way that the reader will infer the proper intent and meaning of the writer.
Thus, if I am inferring it, it is logical to have done so based on the evidence that you provided.
Here is an example of "reading into things." I've never stated these things, nor would it be logical to infer this from the statements that I have made or the evidence that I have provided regarding the amish (both my experience and other articles from the internet).Quote:
You are so invested in making these people educated, and forward thinking, and hip and connected, you've got them more savvy than a New Yorker!
Again, this is a wild, false claim. You have no evidence to support this claim, and I fail to understand why you would make it.Quote:
You can't even allow them to be what they are, a closed religious sect that live a simple, fairly austere (simple, plain, disciplined) life. I would suggest you are the one being condescending. I accept them for who and what they are. But apparently that bothers you.
Quote:
I own my words. They are not denigrating and I won't apologize or re-phrase them to fit your world view. Sorry Zoe, you are just going to have to accept that.
I don't think this is necessary, because it is out of context.Quote:
Now, if you want to discuss the merits of an 8th grade education,(dropping out at 13) and how it's doesn't prepare you to function successfully in a modern, 21st century world, that's another thread we can start.
Foremost, the amish -- for which this is contextual -- do not "drop out." They finish their formal education (as we understand formal education) at 13, and then begin their education. You might call it their life-learning, or continuing educaiton, or skilled learning. Then, as they enter into young adulthood, they may get more formal education (in the form of secondary education) or they may not. And they may also become amish or not become amish.
In not becoming amish, they may choose to get any amount of education -- and they are capable of it because they are educated. Are they educated in the same way as the average american teenager? No, they are not.
But neither is bae's daughter.
And that is where the argument is *relevant.*
There is a process out there called "unschooling." It is where the idea of formalized education (for which you advocate so highly) is considered problematic, so much so that a parent wants to eschew formal education all together. No curricula, no direct process.
So, does this create entirely ignorant, ill-prepared, uneducated children?
No, it does not. Every unschooled child whom I have met is far beyond his/her own peers. S/he is capable of learning anything, enthusastic about it, and follows his/her passions.
What is the process? When a child suggests an interest, the parents provide support of that interest (this is, admittedly, the antithesis of the amish -- but there *is* a point that is relevant). And by following this interest, the child self-educates. . .well, for his/her whole life.
These children also usually go to university, but most go after they have learned a trade. It's an interesting process.
But why is it relevant?
Because we are talking about choice -- the choices that parents get to make in regards to how they educate their kids, what it means for their kids, and what it means for the whole community (our society as a whole, which includes sub-communities such as 'hippies' and 'republicans' and 'amish').
Whether we are talking about the amish -- effectively home-schooling from 8th grade on -- or an unschooler who never sends his/her child to school and never sets them to a curriculum, or a fundamentalist christian who doesn't want their children to learn the theory of evolution, or any other formation that you can think of -- what we are talking about is what individuals value for themselves and their children.
A parent -- like myself -- is going to choose for their child based on their values. The amish value their way of life -- and so they act in accordance with those values.
While I might have any number of qualms about how another person may choose to educate their child, at the end of the day, I have to recognize that their values and my values are divergent.
And because they are divergent, there may be some conflict or tension in those values. And that's ok, truly.
Which is also why your last claim -- that I somehow want you to "fit my worldview" -- this is not at all the case. Aside from being unsubstantiated, I value different world views greatly. I always have.
This includes world views that I might find troubling, difficult, or problematic. Yes, there are some world views that hold less value than others (i tend to feel this way about absolute world views, btw -- which might also be why I find your statements such as "it just is!" and "get a grip!" to be condescending) -- but who is the arbiter as to which world views should be upheld and which world views should not?
And it is this that ties back to the abortion argument. There isn't wrong in Alan's world view. But there isn't wrong in your worldview (assuming, women have absolute right to choice). And there isn't wrong in a lot of world views in the middle.
But these world views are in conflict -- and it is only through *respectful* and *clear* communication of these ideas can we come to any sense of other perspectives, understand the points of view, and come to conclusions that would support as many world views as possible when defining the social and legal processes of our society.
At the end of the day, you're either going to choose to communicate respectfully or you are not.
You have been repeatedly disparaging of the amish (regarding their education and capacity), you have made wild claims about me (you would have me admire them! you make them out to be more savvy than a New Yorker!) where there is no evidence to support this, you have claimed victimhood and asserted that I have demonized you, called you names, and so on (again, without providing any evidence), and you have condescended toward me (get a grip! do you even read my posts? do you even read what you write?).
And you refuse to take ownership of any of it. If you own your words, then you would take what I am saying to you seriously.
Now, and finally, I will not speak of this again. If you cannot see my points -- when they have been so clearly laid out multiple times -- then it is obvious to me that you simply lack the capacity.
why does Texas have the most stringent laws in this area yet have an astounding record of Capitol punishment? Playing god?
How can you argue that we need to reduce government interference except in this matter, which is legal? Don't we have far bigger problems?
And lastly, how can we care so much about this issue while a soldier recently went on a rampage in Afghanistan, we recently has a teenager kill classmates in Ohio, and every day you can find a report of some child being murdered or badly abused by its parents.
It doesn't make sense why this issue is so much more important it has led people to say some really nasty stuff to each other
Flowers why do we care so much about this issue? Because life is precious. People seem to ramble in all directions on this forum rather than stay on topic. Some here think it is ok to kill. That shows why our society and the world is in the pitiful and pathetic state it is in.
Zoe, you really crack me up! In your above post you say I 'insulted' you by stating you didn't read what I wrote..while admitting you DIDN'T READ WHAT I WROTE! Unbelievable! You missed the regressive/repressive thing, and by the way, regressive doesn't mean stupid or backwards, it means rejecting progress. Perhaps a more careful reading of what I wrote will help you find more things you missed.
Again, you keep saying i called them ignorant and backwards. I DID NOT! And I consider this lie you keep telling as a personal attack on me.
Shunning
Shunning, or meidung means expulsion from the Amish community for breaching religious guidelines -- including marrying outside the faith. The practice of shunning is the main reason that the Amish broke away from the Mennonites in 1693. When an individual is subject to meidung, it means they have to leave their friends, family and lives behind. All communication and contact is cut off, even among family members. Shunning is serious, and usually considered a last resort after repeated warnings.
Shunning can be broken down into behaviours and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.
1.To modify the behaviour of a member. This approach seeks to influence, encourage, or coerce normative behaviours from members, and may seek to dissuade, provide disincentives for, or to compel avoidance of certain behaviours. Shunning may include disassociating from a member by other members of the community who are in good standing. It may include more antagonistic psychological behaviours (described below). This approach may be seen as either corrective or punitive (or both) by the group membership or leadership, and may also be intended as a deterrent.
and from your post:
"There are several different kinds of problems -- everything from abuse in families, hiding of people with disabilities, and genetic health problems that are as yet to be solved (though there are several 'english' doctors who are working on that specifically -- one of them formerly amish himself, but desiring to go to medical school, he did, and simply "missed the time" that he could become amish. in deciding to stick with modern medicine as a profession -- he simply 'drifted away' from the amish community. And yet, not fully shunned, he is their go-to physician for his community, and he's managed to find a treatment for three common genetic diseases -- I'll look for the source, it was a local newspaper article in the Lancaster New Era newspaper from about 5-6 years ago)."
See, I wonder why they would even sort of shun him, for wanting to be a modern medical doctor, or for not joining their church. And I'm guessing there are many other respectable career choices for which they can be shunned. Note, I never said they couldn't do these things, or were completely incapable of doing these things, I just said that if you knew you were going to be even a little shunned, that is incredible pressure to not consider these career choices.
In the country at large, 80% or more kids who grew up on the farm don't choose to be farmers. So what's keeping these kids back?
You are young and your kid is young. Maybe you don't realize the incredible influence and pressure a family and community can bring on to a kid. Not many kids would choose to be even a little shunned, or disapproved of strongly by family and community, which probably accounts for the low number that do leave.
I have known people who were forced to drop out of school at 13. These weren't just dumb rocks that just sat on their butts the rest of their lives. They were capable, hard working people, but every one of them wishes they could have continued their education. You seem to think it's easy peasy to simply continue your education on your own. It's not. It's very very difficult, especially when your family thinks you got all the formal education you needed by 13. I certainly admire anyone who does continue, because I know how very hard it is.
Nothing you say is going to convince me that the average Amish parent is encouraging their kid to seek education in computer science, electrical engineering, law, medical technology, physics, evolutionary biology, astronomy, and on and on. It's an exciting world out there, and getting more exciting all the time. Don't tell me these bright, curious, lively teens don't notice. And don't try to convince me that the parents are talking about all these things around the dinner table and encouraging their kids to explore.
•"Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (II Corinthians 6:14)
•"Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord." (II Corinthians 6:17)
Don't forget we aren't talking about some remote tribe somewhere. We are talking about bright, curious American teenagers, smack dab in the middle of modern, progressive, exciting America. Frankly, the way I see this religious sect going forward, they will have to loosen up their restrictions and beliefs about the modern world, or they will go the way of Shakers.
"Now, and finally, I will not speak of this again. If you cannot see my points -- when they have been so clearly laid out multiple times -- then it is obvious to me that you simply lack the capacity."
Right back at ya.
poetry writer, i"m curious. Mitt Romney said yesterday that as President he would completely de-fund Planned Parenthood. Do you agree with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by poetry_writer
Abstinence. And its already free.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
That method seems to suffer a significant failure rate in the real world, ideally though it performs under laboratory conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Tell that to the girl who is being repeatedly molested/raped by her brother, or father, or uncle, or.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
My sister's husband used to rape her, specifically to get her pregnant, when she no longer wished to go along with his sell-babies-for-cash scheme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingerella72
Quite true (and exactly the point).Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Are most abortions performed on rape/incest victims or on women who decided, for whatever other reason, that they didn't want a baby? Laws are, or at least should be, written to cover the majority of cases. A well thought out law should contain language that allows exceptions in cases outside the norm. A case of rape or incest would, I hope, be an exception. I am far from being an abortion advocate, but do support a woman's right to make such a decision without 'help' from the government. I am not qualified to decide if it is right for someone else and don't believe most of our law makers are either. However, the "oops I'm pregnant" cases that result in abortion turn my stomach because, to me, it is one more example of there being no limits in our disposable society. We allow all personal responsibility to be removed; there are very few consequences for our actions in this society. Most of those pregnancies could be prevented easily and cheaply which is why I support getting birth control into as many hands as we can even if it is a government entity handing it out. And yes, regardless of how practical or desirable it is, the one sure fire way to not get pregnant is to not have sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingerella72
It is - but it seems a bit overkill. There is only one particular scenario that will cause pregnancy. I find it interesting that it so often is presented as "all or nothing".Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
For life? (or at least for a woman until full menopause?) Is that your serious proposal, that all people who don't want children should be abstinent for the entire of their reproductive lives? Ok but don't be surprised if even full sterilizations are more popular than this, if I had thought of it at a younger age I may have gone for full sterilization, it's certainly a worry free life. Unfortunately that's only an easy procedure for a man :( The creator is NOT female I tell you! :)Quote:
Abstinence. And its already free.
Viability. Check it out. You can't kill something that has no life of its own. You can make an argument against late-term abortions where viability is an issue, but most of those are performed on doomed fetuses anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by poetry_writer
There have been a couple of stories in the news lately about parents who have righteously refused to abort badly damaged fetuses, thereby sentencing their offspring to months, if not years, of painful and ultimately futile medical procedures. I don't see how that is the high ground, but it's a personal decision.
As far as nature--and the big picture--is concerned, life isn't particularly precious. But I'd love to see the energy put into saving innocent lives from war that is currently expended on lost causes like forced birth.
The world is no more pathetic than it's ever been--you could make an argument that it's less so. We've made some progress, after all. When was the last time you heard of someone punished by being boiled in oil or dismembered by galloping horses? And women, finally, have some control of their own lives. That's progress, in my book.
I couldn't agree more about reproductive responsibility. In my curmudgeonly opinion, if you can't emotionally or financially support a child, including providing a stable, safe and loving home, you shouldn't have one. But mine seems to be the minority view these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg
Yes that's *nature*, I often think it would be nice to live in a *society* where it was though. And then I sound like the Pope :). Well I really don't focus much on the abortion issue though. I think we really do live in a society that devalues human life is so many ways though. Take how old people are treated in our society, often devalued, you really can't arrive at those positions if you really value human life ... you can't arrive at much that is the dominent culture in our society from a real valuing of human life IMO.Quote:
As far as nature--and the big picture--is concerned, life isn't particularly precious.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
I just read somewhere that sterilization is particularly popular with Catholics, maybe because you only have to apologize once.
I would argue that tubal ligation is not such a big deal; it has to be a lot less painful than a Brazilian wax job.:0!
I wouldnt vote for Romney for dogcatcher and no I do not agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggy
The problem with your comment is.....we are talking about two different issues. The topic was not rape, or molestation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingerella72
Convos on this forum dissolve into nothing most of the time because the topic goes in a thousand directions. The fact that some here think killing is fine and life has no value shows why our society and world is in the condition it is. Life has no meaning to those who think like that. It has no value. A baby is as important as a pig, to them. Nothing matters. And it shows when we pick up the paper or turn on the news......welcome to the world where anything goes.
Originally Posted by peggy
poetry writer, i"m curious. Mitt Romney said yesterday that as President he would completely de-fund Planned Parenthood. Do you agree with that?
I wouldnt vote for Romney for dogcatcher and no I do not agree with that. (poetry_writer)
----------------------------------------------------------
boy, it looks like you'll probably find yourself between a rock and a hard place, poetry_writer.......I can't imagine that you are a fan of President Obama, and on the other side, it's likely to be a choice between Mitt Romney and Santorum......Romney is far more likely to be the nominee, making you have effectively no choice at all, because if you wouldn't vote for Romney for dogcatcher, surely you wouldn't be willing to vote for him as President of the United States.
And, if by some chance, Rick Santorum gets the nomination, and is able to do what HE wants to do, which is to be against contraception altogether out of fear of contraception leading to "improper sexual behavior", HIS policies will be almost SURE to end up in massive numbers of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and way MORE abortions........and, of course, he is MORE than willing to see Planned Parenthood defunded completely.
really comes down to retreating into a cave somewhere, for you, I guess....... no wonder you feel so hopeless. ;-)
You havent changed a bit......:o)Quote:
Originally Posted by loosechickens
Was there ever a golden age when the world wasn't in the condition it is, when things mattered, and when it wasn't a world where anything goes? When? The U.S. in the 50s maybe (after our government had just dropped the bomb on Japan - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, if indescriminate wiping out of whole cities is not "killing is fine and human life has no value" what is?). Or maybe the golden age was the middle ages? It seems to me in the past that a lot of mothers died in childbirth though and that in the old days the life of the mother was a very real issue. Or maybe it's just western culture that is debased and other cultures have existed where human life has mattered and we should emulate them? Ok, care to provide examples? Or maybe there hasn't been a golden age, not since Eve ate the apple, and it's been east of eden ever since - well .... at least that position is consistent :). Maybe the golden age exists only in the future when human beings have evolved (even if just by cultural evolution) to be much more compasionate, loving, aware and sensitive beings than they are now. It starts with what? Ok ... maybe .... being more careful about birth control so less babies are aborted, then maybe being sympathetic to people dying in other countries due to our wars, then maybe sympathizing with a people that is losing the island they have always lived on due to global warming, then maybe respecting old people and not devaluing them because they are old (I'm talking about basic respect not radical life extension at all costs here). Well .... I respect idealism so ... ok, have at it :). But I don't believe there has ever been a golden age, or that all evils in the world now are due to abortion.Quote:
Convos on this forum dissolve into nothing most of the time because the topic goes in a thousand directions. The fact that some here think killing is fine and life has no value shows why our society and world is in the condition it is. Life has no meaning to those who think like that. It has no value. A baby is as important as a pig, to them. Nothing matters. And it shows when we pick up the paper or turn on the news......welcome to the world where anything goes.
I think killing is acceptable, even necessary, in some circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by poetry_writer
That position does not come from a belief that "life has no value", but rather the opposite.
Ditto - and to Gregg too. I feel that birth control can, and should, be made more readily availble and affordable to all - and would especially love to see it as a covered service of medical insurance plans. BUT, if you can't afford it, or can't readily obtain it (and I'm talking about ALL types of contraceptives - including making the boys "suit up"), then you shouldn't have sex UNTIL you can obtain contraceptives. That's justr a matter of personal responsibilty to avoid becoming preggers. Same with avoiding STD's - if I get AIDS or some other STD because I didn't follow safe sex practices, I am the one who is responsible for that, no one else. And no one is saying abstain for life, just be personally responsible for your actions and their outcomes. With the myriad of birth control choices out there - many VERY inexpensive ones that can be used in tandem to greatly increase effectivness - no one should ever need an abortion except for in dire circumstances (rape, incest, severe fetal problems to child or mother). Abortions shouldn't be used as a means of casual day to day birth control IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Originally Posted by poetry_writer:
The fact that some here think killing is fine and life has no value ...
That's your entirely subjective interpretation, and I haven't seen a jot or tittle of evidence that it's the truth.
But the topic *is* about whether abortion is "ok" in some instances or not and a girl getting pregnant because she is raped once (or repeatedly raped as in the case of incest) certainly has to be considered. And the ultra conservatives who want control over the power to make laws concerning abortion and contraception, etc don't see a problem with not having an exception to the rule in the case of pregnancy as a result of rape, and that absolutely turns my stomach.Quote:
Originally Posted by poetry_writer
Abstinence-only education doesn't take into consideration that the girl may not have ANY choice in the matter.
Like Gregg, I agree that if woman in a consensual relationship gets pregnant from lack of contraceptive use, an "oops, I'm pregnant" scenario, abortion would be my last advice to give to her; she danced, and she can pay the fiddler by having the child and giving up for adoption. But in the case of pregnancy-by-rape, there has to be a way to spare that girl the trauma of carrying the rapist's child to term, every day being a constant reminder of was done to her and taken away from her. It is for that reason that I am pro-choice.
I think some are advocating for life-long abstention. If you're not married or don't want to reproduce, Rick Santorum and many others think you should just "put an aspirin between your knees."Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartana
then i leave you to yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
No, you leave me to the mainstream of our legal tradition, and our current laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by poetry_writer
For instance, in my state, one set of examples of acceptable circumstances is in RCW 9A.16.050:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050
Most states have similar laws.
"They" can pay the fiddler IMHO. I think that if we make men more responsible and bear a greater burden for unplanned pregnancies, then maybe they would be more careful when it comes to their sexual activity. And I'm not just talking about a life long financial burden to provide for a child, I'm talking physical caregiving responsibilty too. I think that would go a long way prevent unwanted pregnancies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingerella72
And if us girls don't get to play, then the boys don't either :-)!! An equal opportunity asprin for all!! That'll give the guys at the top an incentive to make contraceptiives available to all :-)!Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Goodness, I hardly know where to begin.
Ok, three elements. :)
1. Disparaging the Amish
A. regression
I'm not going to debate the definition. There are several definitions online, and all of them include the word "backwards" in them in either the direct definitions OR in the synonyms lists. You can verify this or not.
That being said, I have already accepted your reframe here, so there's no need to discuss it further.
B. 8th grade
In this last post, I can see that you have attempted to make a general statement, not a specific one.
I still believe that attaching it to the amish is incorrect and inaccurate, and I find the statement that "they are only good for" to be disparaging to anyone (including your friend).
But, based on the information regarding your friend, and the emotive aspect of "difficulty" -- I will accept this as an appropriate reframe and that you had not intended that meaning.
It is a false comparison, but nevertheless, I will take it to a general meaning as opposed to a specific one (applying to the amish).
Relative difficulty, how people do and do not encourage their children (in general) and so on is another topic altogether, and your feelings on it (or mine) are not relevant to this aspect of the discussion.
2. Condescending statements towards me
A. Language vs Feeling
There is a difference between pointing out an issue of language and having a feeling. Other than one comment thus far, I have not felt offended by your statements. Instead, I felt that the language was condescending towards me.
B. Consideration
In essence, I am asking you to consider me (or anyone) when you are responding or writing.
I find it condescending when a person
1. repeatedly demands that i quote them and explain my position, and responds with "did not!" but doesn't reframe or contextualize or apologize (if needed, as I did, btw, for mis-reading)
I grant that you have effectively reframed in regards to the amish. But, you have not dealt with the statements which I have found condescending towards me. So, we are only half way there.
2. repeatedly asserts victimhood, but refuses to provide evidence of the accusations of name-calling, demonizing, etc;
3. asserts that a person doesn't know what they are reading or writing -- and in the first one, crows about it after the person has explained, not that she has not-read, but that she must have mis-read and why and then asserts that it is a "crack up!"
As i stated in my prior post, I must have misread, and I apologized for misreading. Now you crow that it is evidence for not-reading, when this is not the case.
As I stated before, though I admit this current post has far better spacing, I have found your statements very difficult to parse out because multiple ideas that are often different in nature are jumbled together into the same paragraphs.
Many of your statements (like mine) are quite long, and when reading through them, I can loose my place, go back to see if you have written of that idea before, see where it connects to other ideas in the future.
I also get interrupted by phone calls, neighbors, 3yr olds, work, and so on when reading.
And finally, regressive and repressive are very closely spelled, so my mind may still read 'regress' instead of 'repress' where this statement was made.
As yet, I haven't had the time to read every post to find where this recant was, even, but -- benefit of the doubt, I trust that you did state so.
Why not provide the same consideration? That I am -- in fact -- reading your posts, responding as clearly and effectively as possible? Benefit of the doubt that I am reading your posts? that it is possible for a person to make a mistake in their reading, or to have missed something?
And, I did apologize for it. Who crows when someone apologizes? How is that not condescending?
4. asserts that the individual needs to "get a grip" and "take a breath" -- which asserts that the individual doesn't have a grasp on reality and/or is too emotional to see clearly and logically;
5. asserts that the person is simply "too young" to understand the pressures that a parent can bring (presuming to know the person's own life experience in this regard);
This is a hot-button issue for me, and I am offended (the one statement that truly causes an emotional response in me).
Why is this? Well, my history.
At 19, I knew what I wanted to do. Quit uni, go to an ashram, get certified to do yoga and massage, return to my uni town and support myself doing yoga/massage, and then get a degree in business as the community college (also considered living at home to do this). I was informed "absolutely not" and actively discouraged.
At 22, I wanted to go to an ashram and get certified to teach yoga and do massage. I'd saved up my own money to pay and been accepted. My family said "absolutely not! You'll hate it eventually! you'll get bored!" When I would speka about wanting to run a business, they would say "you'll never make it! you are too lazy to succeed! You need to be realistic!"
I went to law school for my family. I did well. I hated the practice of the law. I gained $125,000 in debt. I still owe $80,000 of it. I graduated in 2002. I am still paying it -- I'm not trying to beg out of it. But yes, parental pressure lead me to that.
In my second year of law school, my best friend died. The idea of being a lawyer for "25 or so years until you retire and can become a yoga teacher" -- which is what my parents saw for me as a good and valuable life path -- felt terrible.
I had already been apprenticing with my teachers for years, teaching part time for years, with this idea that I would 'some day, when I'd earned it' be able to do what I wanted to do full time. But at that moment -- it was carpe diem. My friend was 24 years old when she passed. I saw that it could have been me. It could have been my husband's friend -- who died on Monday at age 40. Did he live his dreams? DId he do what he loved in the past 20 years when he could have chosen?
I talked to my parents about leaving law school, getting a part-time job, and doing my yoga thing, gearing up to run a business. Can you guess what they said? The pressure that they put on me?
I finished law school. But by then, I'd decided I'd have to accept their disapproval, their criticism. Criticism I *still* receive 13 years later, living in another country, and successfully running my business.
And it doesn't stop there. I'm no longer catholic. I don't raise my son properly. My house is too small, my lifestyle "poor" and so on.
Do they love me? Yes. Do they miss me? Yes. Are they generous and loving towards me? Yes.
Do they approve? no. Do they encourage? In their way, but not absolutely. Do they discourage? I've lived here two years. I've skyped pretty much every week. Both my husband and I hear -- every week -- when are you coming home? when are you going to move back? when will you give up?
and of course "why can't you do that stuff here?"
No, you are absolutely right. I am too young to know about or have experienced any of this, no?
It's condescending, it's offensive for you to even assert that I am too young to understand. It is the young who understand.
And I understand it in regards to my son, too -- trust me. I see how he trusts us implicitly, how much he wants to please us and to be approved. Do you know how hard I work on that? How much I strive to honor him, while also applying gentle (non physical, non punishment/reward) discipline so that he can learn how to walk in the world with manners and with confidence?
You have completely disregarded my own human experience -- without even knowing what that is, based on how old you THINK i am.
6. using absolutisms in her communication such that any counter argument is unreasonable (it just is! this is reality!);
7. asserting that the individual has a romantic view as compared to one's own 'realistic' view even though that realistic view has very little supporting evidence (amish.net, some bible verses, a quoted statement on shunning -- none of which counter any evidence provided, nor particularly bolster one's own argument);
8. attributing positions to the other person that have no evidence to support that claim (you want me to admire them; you want me to ascribe to your worldview and write accordingly; that my assertion is that it is "easy peasy" to transition cultures; trying to convince you that amish parents are "encouraging" in whatever careers; etc).
I actually haven't made any of these statements that you claim of me. I never asserted that it would be "easy" for an Amish teen to get the education that she wants, or to leave her community -- and I know this because it is based in my own experience.
And, comparatively, I do and did have it much easier than an Amish kid.
My only point is that it is *possible* and I gave evidence of this possibility, which you seem to completely disregard. And, you disregard me in the process (with this last statement about how I am young and don't understand).
3. Conclusion
The reality is this: I want to communicate with people -- that includes you.
But I find it incredibly frustrating to communicate with people who condescend towards me.
So, you can either make amends OR I can simply go forth and ignore you from here on out. It's probably long past due that I practiced the latter, but at the end of the day, I like to give people a lot of chances to amend.
A child conceived of rape or incest is not complicit in the sins of its father. It is innocent, just as a child conceived of consensual intercourse. In my mind, it has the same rights and interests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingerella72
So, I don't see a reasonable moral foundation for carving out a special case for abortion in cases of rape or incest, for treating the two types of fetuses/babies differently. In some ways, I think that direction is a distraction, to assist people in avoiding facing the moral issue at hand: you are killing.
Bad enough some kids are told they were an accident - I can only imagine growing up knowing your existence was just a punishment ("she danced, and she can pay the fiddler") for your mother getting pregnant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingerella72
I would counter your argument by saying most of the women who would uncaringly get pregnant and then use abortion as birth control are often the ones who should least have a child.
In the case of rape or incest, you have two innocent parties with potentially competing interests. In the case of a normal pregnancy, you have one innocent party. That's the distinction in my mind. To clarify the term innocent, I mean didn't have a choice in the events that led to the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
The further along in the pregnancy, the more it becomes clear to me that the child's interest outweigh that of the mother in any case.
I've already brought it up twice, perhaps three times. So has Alan, so have a few other people. How is it that we are saying "no one?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
For me, it looks like this.
For whatever odd reason (likely a catholic upbringing) I believe that life begins at conception. But consciousness seems to be a developing process (buddhist influence, i guess), and brain development is important (a baby's brain grows astronomically in utero, and in the last month, gains a great deal of size in particular, which is part of what makes prematurity so 'scary' -- not to mention other organ development). I would say that, for whatever reason, i believe that "personhood" is housed n the brain, and that a brain needn't be 200% healthy to create a vibrant person. :)
From there, I weigh the moral situation around viability. You might say that this is largely because of Thomas Acquinas, as well as my own experience with a miscarriage (6 weeks). Viability is important to me, and prior to that, the morality shifts (for me).
To be sure, after having my son, I have become far less "cavalier" about abortion -- not that I was ever particularly "cavalier" before.
And then lets talk about this ultrasound business.
Perhaps I am unusual.
I know what an infant looks like at every stage of gestation. I have known this since I was very young. The images of a 12 wk old baby are rather ubiquitous in our culture -- because of those Time Magazine photos published in the 1970s and onwards. THe ultrasound doesn't even give that clear of a picture.
I seem to think -- perhaps wrongly assume -- that people understand what a zygote, embryo and fetus look like because of these photos. Because of sex education. Because of the signs that pro-life protestors carry. Because of information available on the internet.
I seem to think -- and perhaps wrongly assume -- that a woman is fully aware that she is carrying a baby in some form (i.e., form being zygote, embryo, fetus), and that being aware of her circumstances and capacities, would be able to make a decision based on that circumstance.
I do not believe that she is ignorant of the person growing within her, or what they look like (in general, not specific).
I fail to see how an ultrasound would convince her otherwise (it wouldn't me, once the decision is made, this would only serve to torment me more, rather than actually convince me against it -- because I would have already weighed everything on measure, and come to that conclusion -- it would not be a flight of fancy, and I assume, perhaps wrongly, that is the case for other women), and in particular, how a particularly invasive one would.
But talking about these things academically does not mean that one is entirely disregarding the life within, the value of life inherently, or not comprehending the construct of killing.
And to that, as someone brought it up, the reality is that killing has many 'amoral' functions. I consider, for example, killing for food to be appropriate. It might also be appropriate in the cases of just war. Self defense and defense of other are also considered valid reasons to kill (a human), and so here we are opening whether or not *this* killing is morally appropriate.
The law has asserted (which means our community has decided) that when the state attaches personhood to the child -- usually based on viability -- then the legal implications attach.
Which would indicate that, morally speaking, we are following Acquinas.
(and bae, if you can grow tomatoes, I think you are a wizard! :D)