A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I'm up late waiting



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old November 11th 04, 05:57 PM
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Leslie
writes

I think some of the problem for the pro-life side comes when they are asked to
allow things that in their opinion are morally wrong. For example, some
people--maybe a lot of people--might think RU486 is a good idea because the
abortions would be so early and theoretically less awful for the baby than
surgical abortions. But when you are basing your objection to abortion on the
belief that a life is a life from conception onward, you CAN'T compromise in
that way.


I can entirely understand that. What bothers me is when pro-lifers
aren't honest about the reason _why_ they're against something like
that. So, there's been all sorts of spin from the pro-life groups about
how risky RU486 supposedly is, how horrible and traumatic it is for
women - and they really twist the evidence to make these claims. My
feeling is, if you're against RU486 because you're against abortion
generally, why not just be honest and _say_ so, instead of dressing it
up with a lot of other reasons? (This was not aimed at Leslie, even if
she reads this - just something I've noticed a lot of from other
pro-life quarters.)


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

  #252  
Old November 11th 04, 06:00 PM
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Nan
writes
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 09:08:30 -0800, "Circe"
scribbled:


I agree, it is sad. But I think it is equally sad that boys/men aren't
raised to recognize that an unplanned pregnancy is (or at least can be) as
great a problem for *them* as it is for the girl/woman.


I almost agree. The real truth, imo is that girls/women are affected
moreso. The father can reduce himself to a walking checkbook if he
chooses, and the girl is left holding the entire bag.


The other side of that is that a man who _wants_ to be more than a
walking chequebook may well have a very difficult time doing so. There
are a lot of men out there who would love to be more involved with their
children but find they just can't do so because the mother's being
obstructive. That's something else that a man might well find worth
thinking about if he's considering unprotected sex (or even protected
sex, since condoms aren't perfect). Of course, those teenage boys
probably weren't that gung-ho about the idea of fatherhood, but it's
worth thinking about the whole issue of what it would be like to know
there is a child of yours out there that you aren't being allowed to see
or become involved with.


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley
  #253  
Old November 11th 04, 06:05 PM
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Leslie
writes
Barbara said:

I'm not particularly convinced that girls are all that easily coerced by
boys into having abortions. I suspect that for those girls who aren't
comfortable with the decision generally but have an abortion anyway, keeping
their parents from finding out that they were both having sex *and* got
pregnant is a stronger factor than what the boy wants, particularly if the
two are not involved in an ongoing romantic relationship.


The research I've done on the subject showed that coercion by the partner or
the parents was a very frequent reason for abortion. In David Reardon's post
abortion trauma studies, almost all the women would have preferred to have the
baby if they had felt supported.


That doesn't say anything much about how often this happens, since David
Reardon, as I recall, bases his studies on women who have already
declared themselves to regret their abortions bitterly - which,
according to other research, is a pretty small percentage of all women
who have abortions.

However, to go back to the point that was being made, I'm sceptical as
to whether outlawing abortion would make a difference to this. After
all, making abortion illegal isn't magically going to turn an
emotionally unsupportive partner into a supportive one. It'll hopefully
make it more difficult for him to push her towards abortion (in most
cases, anyway - not all, since making abortion illegal wouldn't make it
vanish), but it won't really solve the problems of women who are feeling
alone and abandoned by their partners at this time.


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

  #255  
Old November 11th 04, 06:11 PM
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Leslie
writes
Barbara said:

I realize that. But I can't remotely see how Catholics will ever get all
people in the culture to agree to eliminating both abortion and all methods
of birth control other than NFP. You want to talk about a population
explosion!


I don't think that's on the Catholic agenda, at least not that I've heard.
We'd just be happy if we could get our own members to conform to the teaching.
I'd certainly like to see NFP in more widespread use--I've found it really neat
to see how many people on this ng use it for non-religious reasons.


I will also say that one of the reasons the pro-life/pro-choice debate is so
bitter is this very fact. Certain elements of the pro-life movement are not
interested merely in preventing/stopping abortions, but in
preventing/stopping people from using other forms of birth control. I
frankly find that quite chilling.


Honestly, I don't know about that, other than Catholics wanting other Catholics
to conform to Church teaching. I don't care in the least what kinds of bc
non-Catholics use!


I think practically all Catholics would probably feel the same way (for
that matter, lots of them probably don't even care that much whether
other Catholics conform), but I do know what Barbara's talking about.
The anti-artificial-birth-control position was something I did tend to
run across back in the days when I was debating on talk.abortion - it
was only a tiny minority of extremists, but they were there, and,
unfortunately, they were strident.


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

  #256  
Old November 11th 04, 06:28 PM
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Leslie
writes
I know you won't agree, but I firmly believe in the inherent connection
between sex and babies, and as long as there is no 100% way of
preventing contraception, I don't think anyone, married or not, should
have sex if they aren't prepared to deal with the natural consequence
of a baby.


I once read a magazine article about a couple who actually tried
abstinence as a way of preventing pregnancy, since they'd had one
contraceptive failure and were not at all in a position to have another
baby at that point. They kept it up for months. It put a terrible
strain on their marriage during that time, and there did eventually come
the night when they'd had a couple of drinks at a party, lost their
inhibitions, fell into bed together, and ended up with another pregnancy
that they weren't really in a position to deal with.

No, it's not impossible for a couple to remain abstinent for huge chunks
- or all - of their married life. But it strikes me as a huge thing to
ask. So the problem I have with the "Well, don't have sex unless you're
potentially prepared to deal with a baby" attitude is that, while it can
work fine for people who already want several kids and feel that having
one more than expected, or sooner than expected, isn't really an
insurmountable problem, it's just not that simple for people who either
don't want kids at all, or are just not in a position to have them right
then for whatever reason. For people in that situation, that attitude
can get perilously close to an attitude that thinks of children as a
price that you have to pay for having sex. And _that_ isn't something I
find terribly appropriate, personally.

[...]
Still, I don't think asking them to wait until they are out of high
school is an impossible dream, either. I just think they have to have
to proper foundation laid in advance.


I don't think it's an impossible dream to expect some, even many,
teenagers to wait, but I _do_ think it's an impossible dream to expect
that they all will.

More to the point, I think it's unrealistic to feel that just because
they do wait that long, the problems of sex are going to go away. I do
realise that this isn't at all what you were saying, but it's something
that seems to me to be inherent in the whole attitude of "We expect you
to wait until X age." I don't want to bring my children up to wait until
X age, because the other side of that coin is an implication that once
you hit X age, well, that's OK, then. And I just don't think a
particular age or graduation ceremony is what we should be looking at
here in terms of when sex is OK.

What I want to teach my children is "It is your responsibility to think
about when sex is OK for you and when it isn't. It is your
responsibility to think about whether you've protected yourself against
unwanted pregnancy and against infection. It is your responsibility to
think about how you would cope with a pregnancy if one occurred in spite
of contraception. It is your responsibility to think about whether
you're doing this for the right reasons - is it because you really want
to do it and feel comfortable with the idea, or is it because you're
feeling pressurised by your partner or your friends? And it is your
responsibility to recognise when sex might _not_ be a responsible
decision in a particular situation, and to abstain from it if so." A
teenager who actually sticks to that probably is going to remain
abstinent during school days, and possibly for longer - but I would not
want to say categorically that there are no school-age teens out there
mature enough to deal with those problems and go ahead and have sex
responsibly.

I dated my husband for three hours,


Long-distance relationship, speedy relationship of all time, or typo?
;-)


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

  #257  
Old November 11th 04, 06:34 PM
Sarah Vaughan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Leslie
writes

Barbara wrote:


But you know, I had several sexual relationships
before I met my husband and got married (I'm sure this won't come as a shock
to my mother, who reads this newsgroup!) and I am not sorry that I did. I
think those relationships, with their partial successes and partial
failures, were what allowed me to ultimately choose the right man to marry.
I'm not at all sure that preventing myself from experiencing the full gamut
of an intimate adult relationship before I got married would have been a
GoodThink(TM).


There are probably studies on that too, but I don't have the emotional
energy to look for them right now. :-) I KNOW I've read ones that say
cohabiting couples have higher divorce rates than those who did NOT
cohabit.


That sounds like the kind of thing where proving cause and effect is
almost impossible, for various reasons. To take one obvious example,
there's going to be a high correlation between people who think divorce
is wrong and people who think cohabitation is wrong, so presumably a
group of married couples who didn't previously cohabit would have a
higher percentage of people who were against divorce and would struggle
on in an unhappy relationship where other people would get divorced in
the same circumstances. (Of course, whether you consider that a good or
a bad thing is a different matter.)

Also, of course, sexual relationship != cohabitation. I've had sexual
relationships before this one as well, but DH was the first person I
cohabited with. Both decisions (to be sexually active before marriage,
to cohabit with DH before marrying) were ones that have worked for me
personally. Not to say that they'd be right for everyone, but I would
be very wary of a sex ed programme that tried to teach that there was
just one right way of doing things that would lead on to a fulfilling
life.


All the best,

Sarah

--
"I once requested an urgent admission for a homeopath who had become depressed
and taken a massive underdose" - Phil Peverley

  #258  
Old November 16th 04, 01:04 AM
Anne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Christine"

Children are frequently born prematurely and,although rare, can survive
as early as 5 month of gestation. Kerry supports the killing of a fetus
that has grown during 8 months of pregnancy. I feel the rights of a
nearly born child are more important than the rights of a sexually
irresponsible woman. Bush did not oppose abortions, only late term
abortions performed for "research" purposes.


Really? I thought that Bush has a lineage of 50 or so women ready to give
their almost born babies for ste(a)m cell research...
Anne from dumbkistan


How can you not support him?


`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `

Wow, I just don't get how people are actually in
support of him. I guess if you enjoy living in a
country on a course of destruction. Dedicated
to smashing gays, eradicating woman's rights,




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Query : Late Period Kazh Pregnancy 20 July 26th 04 04:31 PM
Ashley's Birth Story (a bit late) LONG kandie s Pregnancy 3 May 16th 04 05:53 PM
How do you manage late pregnancy exams? Shelly Pregnancy 24 January 24th 04 02:58 AM
being late Robyn Kozierok General (moderated) 27 September 2nd 03 02:09 PM
Too late to correct a bad latch? ted Breastfeeding 5 July 11th 03 08:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.