here we go again...

[Zoebird]

I dig abstinence, and I think it should be taught -- to be sure.

I also believe that FAM should be taught to call boys and girls -- not so that they'll use it as a birth control method, but because knowledge (of bodies) often equates to power and the power to make better decisions.

I do wish I would have learned FAM a good decade before I did -- because I used it to solve many health problems, including those that impacted on fertility. We also used it as a method of birth control (i have not used chemical birth control -- i tried for one month, but just. . . didn't find it right for me), and then barrier methods and abstinence as well (particularly when fertile).

For me, I was raised understanding that sex had a lot of power -- and that it was a beautiful, wonderful thing that was both recreational and procreational. But it also has contexts, and requires responsibility.

[peggy]

Zoe, dear, it's become pretty clear to me that no matter what I say you will twist it into an insult to you, the Amish, and your experiences as a young woman growing up.
Saying you are young is not an insult. I meant it quite literally, not derisively. I'm guessing you are in your late 20's early 30's. To me that's young. Chances are I've been married longer than you've been alive. Whether you admit it or not, older people, who are paying attention, have experienced life, and know more about life, than young people, even those who are paying attention. It's simple mathematics. Just as you have experienced more and know more than a 20 year old, I have experienced more and know more than you. That's not an insult. It's the way life is. Unless you live in a cave, you gain knowledge and experience by simply existing longer.

And one thing I do know, from reading your very extensive posts, is that no matter what I say, you will not be satisfied. You will find a devil under every rock only because you expect to find one. And you will find an insult in every word for the same reason. I'm sure you have heard the saying, "to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". I think we can apply that here.

I never disparaged the Amish, and I never disparaged you. I did get a little annoyed at your constant 'untruth' saying i called the Amish backwards, but I have come, slowly, to the truth of you. It doesn't really matter what I say, does it. It's not about me.

I stand by my words. I think American Amish youth are at a disadvantage in a rapidly changing, modern America. The world is spinning by so fast and furious, these bright, capable youth will be left in the dust, or the sect will go the way of the shakers.

I hope you can find peace with your suspicions. Not everyone is your enemy. Something I learned as I grew older. For the most part, people generally do say what they mean, straight up. No need to 'read into' what someone says. It's right there. Take it at face value. It'll save you a whole lot of angst later on.

[iris lily]

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?"

ok, I remember, besides Alan, you have expressed similar sentiment.

[Zoebird]

Peggy,

Foremost, I've already been satisfied on your opinion on the amish. As I stated, I accept your reframing, and assert that you did not intend to be disparaging -- which is what I both believed all along, for whatever it's worth.

But, secondarily, you continue to assert that you haven't' been condescending to me, while simultaneously doing that which is condescending.

Whether you admit it or not, older people, who are paying attention, have experienced life, and know more about life, than young people, even those who are paying attention. It's simple mathematics. Just as you have experienced more and know more than a 20 year old, I have experienced more and know more than you. That's not an insult. It's the way life is. Unless you live in a cave, you gain knowledge and experience by simply existing longer.

Emphasis, mine. Here are the three statements run together: It is simple mathematics. I have experienced and know more than you. It's the way life is.

This absolutism is absurd.

And it is condescending. Let me suggest, for a moment, that I actually know more than you.

For example: I know several amish families personally, and therefore by dint of that experience, I know what their lifestyles are like, what pressures modernity puts on their lifestyles, and the relative pressures between amish life and modernity that is put on teenagers as they choose whether to join their communities or not.

I state this not because I want to discuss the amish any more. I accept your position as your own, but I think it is based in ignorance, not knowledge or experience. You are welcome to your opinion.

But until you can say that you have experienced life along side amish people, until you have asked them questions about their own lives with openness and curiosity, been invited into their homes -- you cannot absolutely state that your opinion is reality, nor that you have more knowledge and experience that I do.

And yet, you have done this. Several times.

And what I find truly, truly frustrating is not these condescending statements themselves.

What I find truly frustrating is that you still are playing the victim, and are again, attributing things to me that lack any form of evidence what so ever.

I "twist" your words -- poor, victimized peggy!

You hope that I can "find peace with my suspicions" -- what suspicions? There are no evidence of suspicions. There is only evidence of your statements and explanations as to why they are condescending.

"not everyone is your enemy" -- whom did I ever cast as an "enemy?" You? of course not. There's no evidence of this.

"Something I learned as I grew older." Sorry that it took you so long to get there. I took refuge in buddhism at age 20 (after practicing for 6 years). In buddhism, we are taught that there are no enemies, only strangers and friends. I do have enemies -- three of them. I am working -- through tonglen meditation -- on that. I have been for several years (each one is newer than the other, and I think the first is closely reverting to Friend). But, no, you are not my enemy -- and there's no evidence in our posts that I would consider you thus. Perhaps you are just being hyperbolic?

For the most part, people generally do say what they mean, straight up. No need to 'read into' what someone says. It's right there. Take it at face value. It'll save you a whole lot of angst later on.

In irony, this is what I have been doing all along. What you have actually been asking me to do is read into your posts, rather than staying "straight up" what you mean such that it can be taken at face value.

I have quoted you directly. That is face value. It is what you are saying, no 'reading in,' no 'twisting,' and no 'demonizing.'

You can't demonstrate any of these claims that you've made against me, btu I've demonstrated *every* claim that I've asserted against you.

Truly, what gives? YOu simply assume that I "want" to have an enemy? that I "want" to demonize you?

Or rather, could it actually be that you are. . .gasp. . .

wrong?

[Zoebird]

iris lily --

I figure as much.

I think the difficulty arises is that we are often talking about two different people.

For people who want to talk about the baby, the audience that is concerned about the women being left out of the equation want to make sure that they (women) aren't.

For people who want to talk about the woman, the audience that is concerned about the baby being left out of the equation want to make sure that they (babies) aren't!

But in the process of trying to get to this most basic understanding, people get all caught up. But the woman! But the baby!

And it quickly devolves. Those who want to talk about babies get called women-oppressors. Those who want to talk about women get called immoral baby-killers.

The reality is that there is actually a lot of common ground.

And I know this because I've "believed" on both sides of the equation.

Raised catholic, you can bet your buttons I was raised pro-life. I know the arguments and perspectives inside out and sideways both directions. Pretty much, there isn't a single pro-life argument that you can put forth that I haven't heard, or argued myself in debate classes.

But, as I became older, I started to see a much wider perspective -- particularly of how other people viewed things. Like, it was surprising to me to learn that jewish people don't' believe life begins until a baby takes it's first breath. Therefore, any abortion happening before a baby would take it's first breath is not killing (murder).

So this brought forth for me, the conundrum: how does a government of a diverse population with widely different beliefs -- some believing that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is killing (murder), while others believe that life begins at the first breath after birth and therefore abortion is not killing (murder), while even more others believe something in the middle or lots of different things in the middle?

How do we manage, likewise, the fact that we *know* that one person in the equation has all of the requirements of citizenry met -- and therefore all of the rights and responsibilities. We know, for example, that the adult woman in the equation is a fully capable human being, who has the full legal status of her state and federal governments. But we do not know what status the child has -- if any -- and when (PP v Casey has dealt with this issue -- states decide when the baby becomes a citizen and therefore when rights and responsibilities attach).

So when we are in this discussion, there is actually *so much* complexity. . .and then the individual moral arguments as well (such as how each individual understands and defines her context, and therefore would make moral decisions from that understanding based on her own ethical guidelines, spiritual understandings, scientific understandings etc).

At the end of the day, this topic is very deep and very broad.

I think that this board -- unlike many others -- has managed to discuss it in a pretty open way. It took quite a long, long time before it got to the idea of someone being a baby killer. the whole woman-oppressor came earlier (toward alan). It probably came earlier because it was a Man bringing it up against the responses of Women -- and I find this is pretty common. It's a sort of "what would you know? YOu are a man! (sexist)" arguments that come up quite frequently.

But, that is not to say that various social control/shaming methods aren't being used -- but by whom? Men? women? religious organizations? It's important to know how this social policing and sexism in general exists in our culture -- and within ourselves and our thoughts on an on-going basis.

because until we can uncover and release those things, then the sexism will continue.

[loosechickens]

I think we can argue abortion until the cows come home, but the practicality of it is that abortion has been practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years, even infanticide of already born infants was common in some eras. In our modern days, studies show that in places and countries where abortion is illegal, just as many, sometimes MORE abortions occur, not fewer. The only difference between countries where it is illegal and ones where it is legal is not how many abortions per so many women occur, what is different is the number of women who die......many where it is illegal and a criminal abortion business flourishes, and safe for women where it is legal and done by medical professionals.

I wish every child were a wanted child, and that every child could be born into a home where they will flourish. But the real world is not that place, much child abuse and killing occurs among the population of children who started from unwanted pregnancies, not every woman has options, some don't even have control over whether contraception is used, or even whether or not they have sex. Methods of contraception are not foolproof, and the idea that a victim of rape should somehow look upon a pregnancy as a "gift from God", just boggles my mind. Is the reward for rapists to assist them in passing along their DNA for posterity, at the cost of their victims?

If making abortion illegal would eliminate abortions, I can see where one might wish for that.....but since the number of abortions does NOT go down because of illegality, but the number of WOMEN who die DOES go up, a lot.......then it would seem that putting our efforts toward making sure the fewest possible unwanted pregnancies occur would be far more worthy of our efforts.

One would think THAT would be something that all sides could agree upon, but it does seem sometimes as though some who are most vociferous about being anti-abortion, also seem to be anti-contraceptive, anti-family planning, putting as many obstacles as possible to the point where they manage to cut off their noses to spite their faces, causing ever MORE unwanted pregnancies, and hence, larger numbers of abortions......and the wheel keeps turning........

[Zoebird]

But so far, we really haven't been talking about getting rid of abortion, btu simply where the restrictions on it start, and what things must be overcome (by the woman seeking one) to get one.

For some, these standards are too loose; for others, too strict.

This particular incarnation (va law we initially started to discuss) has two elements:

1. a vaginal ultrasound (which was clarified that the mother could choose vaginal or abdominal);

2. showing the pregnant woman the baby within her, having her hear the heart beat.


The relevant question, I think, is whether or not this standard is unreasonable.

Now, for the first part, I think that most people have fairly argued that it is not appropriate to subject women to this particularly invasive ultrasound unless medically necessary -- and an abdominal ultrasound will suffice. If it is true that the law asserts the woman has a choice, then I would be happy with this. If she does not have a choice, then I am not happy about it at all. I find the procedure to be needlessly invasive, akin to rape, and essentially demeaning.

For the second part, I think that this particular standard is interesting.

On the one hand, I find it to be troubling. It assumes that the woman in question lacks overall awareness of herself, her body, who/what is in her body, and what she wants to do about it considering all of her options. I suggest that by the time a woman has decided to have an abortion, she has already run through many aspects of her feelings and beliefs and experiences that she is choosing the best possible solution for her - that is, that abortion is a last resort.

Perhaps you can say that I take a optimistic view of people. This may not be realistic, but I certainly hope that it is so.

If this is the case, then the woman actually "seeing" the baby is unnecessary. In fact, if it were me, I think that "seeing" the baby would be particularly hurtful, as I would have already agonized over this decision at great length, and would be working to live with the fact that I find myself in such dire straights as to require an abortion (something I work and seek to avoid for myself, as much as for other women in so much as I can). I would consider it quite extreme, and it likely still wouldn't put me off my decision.

I think that others can (and have) argued that this is simply a necessary step. I think Alan put it most colorfully -- to look the baby in the eye before killing it. I can certainly value this opinion. I just question whether it is actually necessary.

But, I am also assuming a great deal -- assuming, mostly, the best of people.

[Gregg]

I do always wonder why discussions about birth control never seem to involve the male half of the equation. It seems that both men AND most women just take it for granted that it's the woman's responsibility to handle the birth control. Uh...nope! To me, it's a two party party :-)!

Don't get me wrong Spartana, the male 1/2 of the equation should absolutely share the responsibility equally, straight up 50/50. I was just trying to be practical, too. Truth is, as you said, for a very long time our culture has viewed contraception as the woman's responsibility. Even though that's wrong, it IS where we are so it is also where we have to start from. The only way I can think of to really change that is to put a twist on what we're teaching the upcoming generations. Both the boys and girls should be taught about the responsibility along with the mechanics. It is possible to get to a new normal where its just assumed that the responsibility is split, but its going to take a while. Fair or not, for the moment you girls are still the ones that have the best opportunity to take control of the situation.

[redfox]

http://emilylhauserinmyhead.wordpres...y-works-right/

"If the Republican Party is so anxious to control women’s sexuality (and it clearly is), it had better start shaming men, too.

That is, unless its representatives are willing to argue that men are constitutionally incapable of not sticking their junk into the nearest available lady bits, and we gals have all the power.

I, for one, have too much respect for men to buy that."

[poetry_writer]

I think we can argue abortion until the cows come home, but the practicality of it is that abortion has been practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years, even infanticide of already born infants was common in some eras. In our modern days, studies show that in places and countries where abortion is illegal, just as many, sometimes MORE abortions occur, not fewer. The only difference between countries where it is illegal and ones where it is legal is not how many abortions per so many women occur, what is different is the number of women who die......many where it is illegal and a criminal abortion business flourishes, and safe for women where it is legal and done by medical professionals.

I wish every child were a wanted child, and that every child could be born into a home where they will flourish. But the real world is not that place, much child abuse and killing occurs among the population of children who started from unwanted pregnancies, not every woman has options, some don't even have control over whether contraception is used, or even whether or not they have sex. Methods of contraception are not foolproof, and the idea that a victim of rape should somehow look upon a pregnancy as a "gift from God", just boggles my mind. Is the reward for rapists to assist them in passing along their DNA for posterity, at the cost of their victims?

If making abortion illegal would eliminate abortions, I can see where one might wish for that.....but since the number of abortions does NOT go down because of illegality, but the number of WOMEN who die DOES go up, a lot.......then it would seem that putting our efforts toward making sure the fewest possible unwanted pregnancies occur would be far more worthy of our efforts.

One would think THAT would be something that all sides could agree upon, but it does seem sometimes as though some who are most vociferous about being anti-abortion, also seem to be anti-contraceptive, anti-family planning, putting as many obstacles as possible to the point where they manage to cut off their noses to spite their faces, causing ever MORE unwanted pregnancies, and hence, larger numbers of abortions......and the wheel keeps turning........

The problem with your post is that it contains multiple errors. Most people who are pro life are not anti contraceptive or anti family planning. Many crisis pregnancy clinics are run by people who are in fact...pro life. They accept and love the women who come in even if they state "I want an abortion". The one I worked in believed the best way to prevent abortion was to love and support the mother. The difference between you and me...loosechicken....is that i believe every child is precious and valuable in the world. Even if born into poverty and difficult circumstances, they matter. We wont be agreeing on this issue, but I believe in getting out there and doing something to help those in difficult situations . Maybe you could do the same.