If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#491
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#492
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#493
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#494
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#495
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#496
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#497
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#498
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#499
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#500
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Really OT!] Price Estimate Help | Jeanne Hedge | Cat anecdotes | 33 | August 25th 04 02:07 PM |
veterinary drugs in UK - where can I get in EEC at reasonable price ? | icarus | Cat health & behaviour | 6 | June 14th 04 04:52 PM |