What Price For Kitty?

Meghan Noecker wrote:snip

But why? What do you base it on?

Almost everyone I know who is childfree is liberal politically - mostly
environmental activists, and mainly pro-choice. Not that being any one
of those things automatically means one subscribes to the other
ideologies, but in general, it has been my experience that one does.
Nearly everyone on a.s.c is pro-choice from what I can ascertain.
Since you are childfree - why don't you pop over there and pose the
question. I would venture to bet that at least 90% of the childfree in
that group are pro-choice. A scientific survey? No, but it's a pretty
good x-section of the childfree population.

Honestly, if somebody says that they
choose not have children, do you just assume they are pro-choice?

No.


I realize you don't see that as an insult, but I don't appreciate
people assuming I am for something that I think is horrible.

I don't assume anything about anyone. If you see my statement, "Many
or most childfree are pro-choice", as an insult, that's your own folly.
It's no more offensive than saying many or most inferttile people are
"pro-life". That, again, would be another statement I would say is
true based on my own experiences, yet I, myself, am infertile and
pro-choice.

snip

-L.

On 2005-02-20, Hodge penned:

Teens think they're safe. Period.

It's not even that. Teens are for the most part not capable of thinking about
consequences in the way adults are. It's not just experience, either; it's
that their brains are still developing.

I'm sure it's one of the reasons the military prefers young recruits.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

On 2005-02-20, Meghan Noecker penned:

Assuming we are talking about pre-marriage, I don't see what the problem is.

Why would I want to have sex with somebody who doesn't give a damn about me
as a person?

Why do you assume that the biological sex drive has anything to do with
whether or not the partner gives a damn? A lot of it's just "I want to put my
thing in a hole" or "I want my hole filled." Especially as teenagers. Sorry
to be so blunt, but from what I've seen of teenage behavior, it's true.

We were talking about abstinence being taught in schools. Assuming it is
taught early enough, kids wouldn't be giving up sex. They would be waiting
to start it.

I do think it's easier never to start than to stop after you've started, again
from observing my own friends in high school, but I think it's unlikely that
teaching abstinence is enough to prevent all the kids from having sex. There
are a lot of school districts that are the very opposite of yours, where the
only thing taught is abstinence, and afaik it's not working.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

On 2005-02-20, Meghan Noecker penned:

And there is the emotional toll. What good is it to have teenagers out there
mating with everybody? What does it teach them about long term
relationships? I watched my sister go through this crap. Being used by guys
because she was easy. I thought she might kill herself when she learned that
her fiance never intended to marry her - he just enjoyed a live-in maid and
sex partner. She didn't realize how much he had been using her, and that he
really didn't care about her. He dumped her and moved in with a new girl
less than a week after she insisted on a wedding date.

You're not describing everyone. I had a monogamous relationship that started
when I was in 10th grade and lasted through college.

Your sister's experience sucks, but it's just an anecdote, just like mine
above. I don't believe most men would get engaged to someone just for sex.
He was an asshole.

I can't imagine marrying someone without knowing what they're like sexually,
and what they like sexually! Sexual compatibility is a large part of a
romantic relationship, at least to me, and by all accounts that's true for
most people.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

On 2005-02-20, Hodge penned:

These kids think they can't get pregnant when they *don't* use anything at
all. They're kids. They're invincible. That's how they think.


It's worse than that, IMO. I knew I could get pregnant. I freaked out
about periods every month. But when it came to actually not having sex
.... I tried to think about it, and it just wasn't an option. I don't
know if my sex drive was unusually strong as a teenager or what, but
with a willing partner at hand ... I was the epitome of the "don't drink,
don't smoke, what do you do?" question.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

On 2005-02-20, Meghan Noecker penned:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:23:34 -0500, Orchid

Meat breeds have been bred to develop quickly, and they are
farmed to get them to slaughter as fast as possible. My source is he
http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/poultry/factsheets/1.html



Thanks. I've never heard of that, and clearly, the chickens I had were for
laying hens, not meat. So, that makes sense. Pretty sad though.

If they've been bred to develop quickly, their natural life span might not be
that long ...

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

"Meghan Noecker" wrote in message
...
First, my point was that many teens do think they are safe - at the
wrong times! There is a myth that you cannot get pregnant during
menstruation, but that is untrue. Most women do not ovulate during
that time, but some do.

By knowing when you are ovulating, and thus avoid sex during that
time, you can cut a lot of risk down. It is certainly not full proof,
but better than not knowing.

I would also be curious to know how women have gotten pregnant at all
times of their cycle. Two weeks away from ovulation is a bit long for
the sperm to survive.


Oh yeah, I would really expect teenage girls to monitor their cycles. Wake
up, take their temperature, write it down, make a chart, etc. Heck, I did
it when I was *trying* to get pg, and it was nearly impossible.

Many, many women do not have regular cycles, especially young women just
starting their periods. It's hard to know when you are "safe".

--
-Kelly
kelly at farringtons dot net
"Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG

Meghan Noecker wrote:
On 18 Feb 2005 08:32:18 -0800, "-L." wrote:



Fine. Whatever. But IME, you are a minority.


Plese don't treat it as a fact then. I haven't met a single person
who
claimed to be pro-choice *and* pro-life (against abortion).

What the heck are you talking about? Do you mean childfree and
pro-choice? Just wander over to asc - there are dozens if not hundres
of 'em. If you get your bundies in pantle over someone saying many (if
not most) childfree are pro-choice, you have along row to hoe in
life...




Yes, but it is championed be people who promote abortion,

I don't know anyone who "promotes" abortion, and I have worked with
the
National Abortion Rights Action League (US) since 1989 or so.


Well, that sounds like promotion to me.

Well, then you are ignorant of the abortion rights movement.

You want to keep it going.

I want the *right* to have an abortion to remain. I don't want anyone
to have to have an abortion. Abortion is a horrible end to a difficult
situation. I simply want people to govern their own reproduction.

To
me, this is like encouraging euthanizing kittens rather than trying
to
find more homes and educate cat owners. In both cases, this is a
horrible thing happening, and we need to find ways to stop it, not
keep it going.

Now you've ****ed me off. You have NO IDEA what I do. FYI, I have
supported PP as well, for almost as long, educating on sex and birth
control which includeds abstinence. You are *way* off base. Have you
ever attended a Planned Parenthood educational seminar? Have you ever
attended a NARAL meeting? Didn't think so...




Those who support pro-choice stance merely try to protect the right
to
govern your own choice to reproduce...or not. That's it. It has
nothing to do with *sex* per se.


Well, we know that sex produces children. It's pretty hard to get
pregnant if you aren't having sex. So, I would have to say that this
is part of the choice in reproduction.

Whatever. They are separate issues.




Why should it? I don't care if you have sex or not, with whom you
have
sex, or sex at all. All I care about is protecting your right to do
whatever you want with regard to your *own* reproduction.

I don't believe we have the right to do "whatever we want",
especially
when it means taking a life.

First of all I was talking about SEX. SEX, not abortion.

But now that you brought it up...You think it's a "life"; I think it's
a clump of cells. So far the laws agree with me - it has no rights.
Sure, it's potentially a human - but so are eggs and sperm, and some
basal cells, and stem cells, etc., etc., etc...When you can take an
embryo out of my uterus and carry it to term yourself, I will let you
ban abortion. Until then, stay out of my uterus.

Why don't we teach teenagers to choose not to sleep
around?

Are you asking *me*? I will teach my son "not to sleep around" if
and
when the time comes. I don't want anyone else teaching him one
single
thing when it comes to morals and ethics. That's *my* job, not
your's
or anyone else's.

And that is why we have so many uneducated children. I am not
referring to you specificially, but the idea that parents don't want
it taught in school, so while you may teach your kid, many other
parents are *not* teaching their kids.

That's their right.

There are a lot of teenagers,
even adults, that do not know what days of the month that they can
get
pregnant. They have no idea how their own cycle really works, and how
they can predict those days. They also do not realize that our cycles
will vary by person and can change over time. So, it is up to us to
figure it out.



Well, then you do it by education - if and when someone seeks to be
educated. You can't force people to be educated.

-L.

Meghan Noecker wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:58:17 -0700, "Monique Y. Mudama"
wrote:

On 2005-02-18, Meghan Noecker penned:
On 17 Feb 2005 08:23:31 -0800, "-L." wrote:

No, I choose to be childfree, and I also choose never to consider
abortion,
therefore, I am not pro-choice.

Choosing never to consider abortion is not "not pro-choice." Plenty
of
pro-choice people have that stance. They just don't try to dictate
what
others do in that situation.



It may vary in different areas. I have never seen it expressed that
way. But I live in a very pro-choice area. The only time I see the
term is with people fighting to keep abortion rights.

I choose abstinence til marriage, and will look at birth control
options
then. While I hope never to deal with rape, I would have to go
with adoption
if I got pregnant from that.

I just hope you wouldn't force others to do so. Me, if that
happened I'd cut
my stomach out from the outside before carrying that child to term.
I
couldn't deal with it.

It is one rare case I would be willing to accept, but I hate seeing
that and health of the mother brought up in every argument as if it
is
more common than irresponsible people getting pregnant.

Do you seriously think that the only people getting abortions are the
irresponsible? I hate to tell you but birth control fails - often.
Especially barrier methods. And the "natural family planning" method
you want to teach teens has the worse failure rate of all. An estimated
43% of women will have at least one abortion by the time they are 45
years old. (http://www.guttmacher.org) Do you believe that 43% of the
female population isn't using birth control?

-L.

Meghan Noecker wrote:


Well, I am confused now.

Assuming that pro-choice is not pro-abortion (as I have been taught
around here), but actually to keep ALL options open;

then how can I be against abortion and still pro-choice?

It's not a black and white issue.

I and many, many others wouldn't have an abortion, personally. We
would like it to not have to exist. We think it is a sad ending to a
sad situation. However, we respect the right of the individual to make
*that choice* for themself. Therefore we could never be "anti-choice"
or "pro-life" if you want to call it that.


I still don't see how they can be considered the same. I cannot be
pro-choice if I have to accept abortion as a valid option.


What?...?

-L.