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.Originally Posted by HKPassey
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
Last edited by ApatheticNoMore; 3-14-12 at 9:52pm.
Trees don't grow on money
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..
Last edited by Midwest; 3-14-12 at 10:14pm.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote