What Price For Kitty?

ceb wrote:
"-L." wrote in news:1108624502.854744.95480
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

That's one reason I kept my Toshie instead of taking her into the
HS
whenI found her. She's black (border collie/lab/chow mix, we
think).


Peectures??? Here's Zoe, my cockerchow:

http://www.dogster.com/pet_page.php?i=46589&j=t

--Catherine

Cute!!

Here's Tosh when she was younger:

http://groups.msn.com/idontmindsComp...hoto&PhotoID=9

She's terminally ill with an inoperable tumor. :*(

-L.

On 19 Feb 2005 09:40:49 GMT, (Meghan
Noecker) wrote:


Well, that sounds like promotion to me. You want to keep it going.

Damn straight. I am an adult woman, not a brood mare. Forced
pregnancy is the most horrific thing I can think of to go through.
Women have *always* had the choice to terminate pregnancies --
prehistoric medicine women have been found buried with their tools of
the trade -- which always include natural abortifacents. The idea
that now, when we have *safe* abortion, we would ban it is sickening
to me.

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.

It's not like women get abortions for fun. They are *surgery*
and carry a risk to the women just like any other surgical procedure.
But women have a right to choose what happens to their own bodies.
They have a right to choose whether they wish to risk gestational
dibetes, a depressed immune system, labial and clitoral tears, and
everything else that goes along with pregnancy. No one forces parents
of existing children to donate organs to them -- I dont see how we can
force a woman to give up her uterus to a child.


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.

I am a joyously married woman. I have sex with my husband.
Neither of us wants children. So you're saying I'm not allowed to
have sex with my husband?


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

What about *my life*? What about the life of a person who is
already here? I tend to think that takes precedence over the life of
a potential person.



Orchid
See Orchid's Kitties! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage
Want a Purebred Cat? Read This! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid

On 19 Feb 2005 09:50:40 GMT, (Meghan
Noecker) wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:54:31 -0500, Orchid
wrote:


Don't forget chicken. It should be 'dead baby chicken',
becausae chickens are slaughtered at 12 weeks old --chickens
'normally' live 7 years. And don't forget beef! Cows are slaughtered
at 16-22 months of age, and they could live to be 25! So I guess it's
'dead baby cow with pale meat' and 'dead baby cow with red meat'.
Lamb is, well, lambs, so 'dead baby sheep', and pigs go under the
knife at one year and they could live to 25, so it's 'dead baby pig'.


Where did you get those numbers?

I used to have chickens for eggs, and I started with 25 baby chicks.
They were not very big at 12 weeks. Certainly not as big as the
chickens in the store.

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



Orchid
See Orchid's Kitties! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/bengalpage
Want a Purebred Cat? Read This! -- http://nik.ascendancy.net/orchid

"Steve G" wrote in message
oups.com...

Phil P. wrote:
(...)
Oh, its no effort at all. In fact, threads like this make me
more cautious about who I place a cat with.

So, you find the thread useful...

S.


Oh Stevie, I'm so flattered that my opinion is so important to you!

On 2005-02-19, Meghan Noecker penned:
On 18 Feb 2005 08:40:07 -0800, "-L." wrote:


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.

i think she was talking about her, personally, but yes - good point.



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?

If you personally would never have an abortion but want other women to have
the legal right to have an abortion, you are pro-choice.

If you personally would never have an abortion and also want to ensure that no
other woman may have an abortion, you are not pro-choice.

I interpreted your statement as the former because of the "I choose" part of
your statement. I may very well have been wrong.


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.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

On 2005-02-19, Meghan Noecker penned:

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. 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.

When I was a teenager, I was a nervous wreck on a monthly basis because I
always thought my period was late and I must be pregnant. It wasn't until my
mom took me to the gyn (when she found out I was sexually active, to get me on
the pill) and I read the question on the form, "How long is your cycle?" that
it occured to me that possibly not everyone in the world has a 28 day cycle.

I strongly support better sex education in schools. I have no problem with
schools discussing abstinence and emphasizing it as the safest choice, *as
long as* they also make clear the many other options out there. Sex ed
teachers in my school were either the gym teacher or the bio teacher, neither
of whom had a freakin' clue. The female gym teacher even told us that pain
during menstruation wasn't normal and that it indicated dysmennoreah! (sp)

My first boyfriend knew more about my body than I did. I had never even heard
of the clitoris. I honestly think that sex ed's general line that boys are
the ones who want sex while girls are just the ones who can give it to them
does a severe disservice to girls, who have fragile enough egos as teens.
Teens will do almost anything to be liked, certainly including sex (not all
teens, obviously). And what's with the SG having to be fired for advocating
masturbation? Gee, it's safe, easy, and a great way to learn about your body
without actually having sex. Clearly it must be evil =/

Perhaps in reaction to all of the above, I make a point of learning as much
about sex as I can, from the vanilla to even the stuff that really grosses me
out. I imagine myself being able to answer kids' questions when they're
afraid to ask their parents. Of course, I'd have to know some teenagers for
that to really help.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

On 2005-02-19, Diane L. Schirf penned:

Native Americans used sphagnum moss and seeds high in estrogen to prevent
pregnancies as well.

There are seeds high in estrogen? Interesting.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

On 2005-02-19, Meghan Noecker penned:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:58:17 -0700, "Monique Y. Mudama"
wrote:

Because it doesn't work. We've been trying it for centuries. Sex ed
teachers are doing it right now. It doesn't WORK. Use me as an example of
someone for whom it doesn't work, if you'd like. I'd much rather teach
teenagers how to use condoms and make the Pill and other contraceptive
measures freely available via a doctor's checkup that the parents don't have
to know about.

But they aren't teaching abstinence here. Parents complain that it is
religion, and they don't want it in the schools.

Okay, that's just as insane as the other extreme. Abstinence is just not
having sex -- how can that be a religion?

*sigh*

Also, nobody is teaching these kids that condums are *not* safe sex.
They are only 99% effective. And that is statistical - in other words,
it doesn't mean that it works for 99% of people. It means that it
works 99% of the time. So, if you have sex 100 times with condums, the
odds are that one will fail.

Huh. The term "safer sex" was coined for a reason =/

Yes, this is why I've never really been comfortable relying on condoms for
pregnancy avoidance. Unfortunately, that leaves me with hormones as the
alternative. They have their own drawbacks, and also have failure ratings,
although those are mostly associated with people who frequently forget to take
the pill at the right time. I remember having been on the pill for several
years and expressing concern about getting pregnant -- my gyn just laughed and
said that with as much hormone as I had in my body, I shouldn't worry about
it.

And I have yet to see if any of those studies take into account the
simple fact that a woman can only get pregnant a few days each month.
So, are they really 99% effective, or is it worse than that.

I have wondered about that when I see statistics, but I don't know if the
studies do take that into account or not. I mean, I'd understand condom
manufacturers not mentioning it, but I'd be surprised if the pro-abstinence
people wouldn't do their own modified study ...

Realistically, though, I don't think most women have sex only when they're
fertile, and fertility calculations aren't perfectly reliable, anyway.

Also, consider that the HIV virus is smaller than sperm (and it is
dangerous every day of the month, and you have that risk to deal with
as well. So, no, I don't think condums are that safe. They just give a
false sense of security. And that doesn't even begin to deal with the
emotional problems.

And HIV isn't the only scary thing out there, and it's not the only uncurable
one, either. It is the deadliest untreatable STD, AFAIK.

You can tell teenagers not to sleep around as much as you'd like, and
a large percentage will still do it. So while yes, abstinence is the
only guaranteed way of not having kids, I don't feel that advocating
exclusive abstinence will prevent teenage pregnancies. It just leads
to brilliant solutions like "Well, anal sex won't get me pregnant, so
let's do that." Of course, that leaves the kids even more vulnerable
to STDs than does vaginal sex.

I think we need to get real with sex education and start telling them
the truth. How easily these things do fail. And how dangerous it
really is. And the same with anal sex. These kids are believing a
bunch of myths, and it is only making things worse.

I 100% agree here. Although, instead of "how easily these things fail," I
would want there to simply be full disclosure, no agenda. There are, for
example, a lot of benefits to the pill -- prevention of cancer, reduction of
acne, easier cramps, for starters.

I agree that it should not be taught as the only option - kids would
only rebel against that. But it should be taught as the best option.
And the other options should all be shown in an accurate way - showing
them the dangerous associated with each.

Dangers and benefits. I agree.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

On 2005-02-19, Hodge penned:
In article ,
(Meghan Noecker) wrote:

They are only 99% effective.

About the same as the pill. So, sex without protection -- 100% unsafe and
with no protection against STDs -- is better?

Well, according to the chart that came with my pills, which granted might be
biased:

first column is typical use, first year. second column is perfect use, first
year.

Male Condom: 14% 3%
Progestin-only pill: 0.5% for both
Combined pill: 0.1% for both

Doesn't look the same for me.

I would say, pill-only is best for trustworthy monogamous relationships in
which both parties have been tested. Pill plus condom gives you better
protection.

Depo has extremely reliable numbers (injected every three months), and I did
it for a long time, but it's a pretty serious change to your body's dynamics
and I decided to give it a rest.

"Abstinence" is unreliable because most people aren't going to give up sex
for long. That's flat unrealistic, and historically it's never happened.

Not I, that's for sure. I just don't have that kind of self-control.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

"Diane L. Schirf" wrote in message
nk.net...
In article ,
Orchid wrote:

Women have *always* had the choice to terminate pregnancies --
prehistoric medicine women have been found buried with their tools of
the trade -- which always include natural abortifacents.

Native Americans used sphagnum moss and seeds high in estrogen to
prevent pregnancies as well.

--
In the ancient world it was alligator dung pessaries.
I am not kidding. Also, the seeds of Queen Anne's Lace
are antiovulants; and both rue and pennyroyal have been used as "things to
bring on menses" (aka abortifacients) for
thousands of years.