View Full Version : here we go again...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57392796-503544/virginia-gov-bob-mcdonnell-signs-virginia-ultrasound-bill/
So, this Virginia gov. has signed in this intrusive MANDATE that women (who apparently are just too stupid to know what is in their bellies!) must have an ultrasound before having a legal medical procedure.
This is a clear case of government over reach and interference. They are now forcing this unnecessary, intrusive medical procedure on these women. Wow! Talk about over reaching government!
The Republicans do realize women vote, right? Or are our voting rights next on the chopping block? I wouldn't doubt it. They keep talking about 'taking us back' but they never say to what. Well, it ain't rocket surgery. It's becoming pretty apparent 'to where' they wish to take us!
So, you conservatives/republicans on this forum. What say you? Is this gross application of government power? Or is this effective use of government in your opinion? What do you think of this?
It is popular these days to strip the unborn of their humanity through language. The ultrasound image may be the first time some women realize that there's a baby in there.
So, you conservatives/republicans on this forum. What say you? Is this gross application of government power? Or is this effective use of government in your opinion? What do you think of this?
I'd say the government has no moral authority to tell a woman what she can do with her body. And that women have every moral authority to resist this to the utmost. And the rest of us have an obligation to assist.
I'd say more, but my blood pressure would rise, or they'd drag me off to Gitmo.
Same thing going on here in Texas. Makes my skin crawl to think that men still tell women what to do with their bodies. I think abortion is a horrible thing but this is too much.
The ultrasound image may be the first time some women realize that there's a baby in there.
THAT is bull****.
If a pregnant woman wants a medical procedure such an ultrasound, she requests one. It's between her & her PCP.
I agree, redfox. It is BS. Most women know what pregnancy is and what it means before they cross the threshold of menses. They know it's a baby in there, ultrasound or no. And if they choose to terminate their pregnancy as per their legal right under the laws of the land, then this invasive procedure is ridiculous.
I agree with bae, here.
Is it true that Planned Parenthood already requires ultrasounds before they will conduct an abortion? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-abortions-ultrasounds/
“That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at
Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the
gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an
ultrasound.”
According to Schreiber, Planned Parenthood does require women to give signed
consent for abortion procedures, including the ultrasound. But if the women
won’t consent to the ultrasound, the abortion cannot take place, according to
the group’s national standards.
flowerseverywhere
3-7-12, 10:37pm
Alan, the rest of the story quotes this:
"Johnson pointed out that vaginal ultrasounds are necessary in the cases of early pregnancies. According to Johnson, “90 percent of abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks.” According to Johnson, for North Carolina women, the new ultrasound requirement would not change their experience with ultrasounds at Planned Parenthood clinics, but now all abortion providers in the state would have to abide by that same policy. Johnson stated, “Before the law, if a woman didn’t want to undergo the scan, she could go elsewhere,” but that option would not be available if the currently enjoined section of the law goes into effect."
http://ncfamily.org/stories/120229s1.html
this law takes away that choice. Most women are not too stupid to realize a baby is in there. That is a downright nasty and mean thing to say. Do you think more abortions would be prevented if men were more supportive? I cannot tell you how many women I have known in my life who had a sperm donor who did anything to avoid paying child support as well as paying emotional support to the woman and her child. And women I know who have had abortions did not skip in and say Whoopee!
when I was in nursing school we had a chance to work in an abortion clinic. It was a life changing experience, and I came away with a more pro-abortion stance than I had before. I seriously thought of doing that after nursing school but instead worked in psych (and therefore with some women who had abortions who never got over it). There were older women, young women, mothers, daughters. There is no one description of a women who gets in this situation. Some had errors of judgement, some were forced into sex, some thought it would not happen to them, there are all kinds of stories. Most had such a sadness in their hearts.
It is very demeaning to think that women are too stupid to realize what is happening. Maybe they are the smart ones instead of people who bring children into the world to teach their agenda of hate. Because what we have going on right now is an agenda of hate, humility and shaming largely by the gender who cannot get pregnant.
flowerseverywhere
3-7-12, 10:40pm
I'd say the government has no moral authority to tell a woman what she can do with her body. And that women have every moral authority to resist this to the utmost. And the rest of us have an obligation to assist.
I'd say more, but my blood pressure would rise, or they'd drag me off to Gitmo.
thank you bae, there are very few men standing up for women these days.
Is it true that Planned Parenthood already requires ultrasounds before they will conduct an abortion? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-abortions-ultrasounds/
There's a big difference between doing an ultrasound so the medical professional can make sure to do a safe procedure and doing an ultrasound for the purpose of requiring the woman to look at it.
I've had an ultrasound (I'm a guy, so no, I wasn't pregnant) and the ultrasound tech not only didn't make me look at it, he wouldn't let me. And wouldn't answer any questions I had. I had to wait until my follow up with my doc.
It is popular these days to strip the unborn of their humanity through language.
It seems popular among some to label a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus as a baby. In medical terms, none of these are "humanity"; labeling these developmental stages thusly is a religious stance. Since reproductive health care is medicine, not religion, the language debate is interesting, can be quite divisive and inflammatory, but is not pertinent to medicine.
I do understand that some feel an abhorrence for abortion. That is why keeping it a private medical decision is good public policy. None should be forced to either carry or terminate a pregnancy, and the literal intrusion of the state in mandating a procedure for women seeking a medical procedure is overreach, to say the very least.
when I was in nursing school we had a chance to work in an abortion clinic. It was a life changing experience, and I came away with a more pro-abortion stance than I had before... There is no one description of a women who gets in this situation. Some had errors of judgement, some were forced into sex, some thought it would not happen to them, there are all kinds of stories. Most had such a sadness in their hearts.
It is very demeaning to think that women are too stupid to realize what is happening. Maybe they are the smart ones instead of people who bring children into the world to teach their agenda of hate. Because what we have going on right now is an agenda of hate, humility and shaming largely by the gender who cannot get pregnant.
When I was 42, I got pregnant with my then newish BF, now DH (classic perimenopause pregnancy; day 25ish of my cycle-facepalm!), and the thought of an abortion made me physically ill. That made me more pro-choice than ever as well. I realized quite viscerally how deeply personal an experience and decision abortion is. I would have chosen abortion if the pregnancy I was carrying was a Down's syndrome child, as I knew I could not support a special needs child financially. I miscarried, and while I was sad, so too was I very very relieved. I'd have a nearly 14 year old today, OMG, and though we would have made it work, that miscarriage was a good thing for me.
The utter arrogancy, dehumanization and disrespect being enforced upon women infuriates me. I was 18 when abortion became legal and safe. My mother had a friend who died from septic infection from an illegal abortion. She was on a cruise ship, and did not know she was in danger. She died in the Bahamas, it was 1968, and her family found out about it by reading the story in the newspaper. Her body had been dumped in the ocean. I had friends who did unspeakable things with knitting needles, threw themselves downstairs and broke bones to miscarry.
I was an abortion counselor in the late 70's, assisting women to make what was for some, not all, the hardest decision they had ever made. I listened to stories of the rape of a 14 year old by a family member, and this girl did not realize she was pregnant till her second trimester. I heard a story from a Catholic mother of 5 who was desperate to not have any more children, she was so worn out. I listened to women of every circumstance and age, in mid-Missouri, and referred those who wanted an abortion to the appropriate clinic. Never once did I meet a woman who was cavelier or casual about her decision.
I am nearly 57. I will go to jail, if that is what it takes, to defend safe and legal abortion.
Is it true that Planned Parenthood already requires ultrasounds before they will conduct an abortion? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-abortions-ultrasounds/
I thought one needed to do an ultrasound to guestimate the age of the fetus, determine it's not an ectopic pregnany and rule out other issues before performing an abortion.
The issue of viability and the related abortion law is valuable to discuss.
Most states assert that abortions are OK up to X week, and after that, must be for a medical reason. This is, of course, a generalization, but that is generally how it rolls out.
The issue is largely of dating to come into compliance with this law. Planned Parenthood -- largely because it is so public about it's activities -- would want to be well above board. They would demand an ultrasound (which they can provide in office) to determine the approximate gestational age of the baby so they wouldn't come under fire (or legal problems) for simply going with the reported age of the pregnancy (by the woman).
Likewise, other doctors or organizations who provide abortions might simply follow the model of reporting rather than going with an ultrasound to determine gestational age.
But, there is a BIG difference between the typical ultrasound and the vaginal ultrasound -- which is not common practice for dating the gestation of the pregnancy.
A vaginal ultrasound is far more intrusive and may put women off (particularly victims of rape, incest, and sexual abuse) -- and if it includes "showing" them the baby, then this may be even more emotionally invasive when women are already making a difficult decision, with many other requirements such as 24-48 hr waiting periods, counseling and other requirements in the process (which are designed to prevent her from going through with the procedure).
So, why is this law important to discuss? Because the procedure is specific.
Instead of saying that ultrasound dating will be the standard method to determine if the abortion is compliant with the law, this law is stating that a particularly invasive form of ultrasound must be used in order to date the pregnancy.
And yet, for the purposes of birthing, a normal sonogram will do, apparently -- those women are not subject to vaginal ultrasound, and why would a doctor use when when a normal ultrasound will do?
A normal ultrasound -- as it is now, an abdominal ultrasound -- can provide the same dating process. Likewise, the ultrasound doesn't need to be shown to the mother at all -- if it's simply there for dating. Why would it?
It's meant, I believe, to create an attachment for the mother, but I never had one -- does that mean I lack attachment to my infant while he was in utero? Definitely not. I knew I was pregnant. I loved my little fish. But, I also wanted him. And that makes the difference -- not seeing an ultrasound of him.
Never once did I meet a woman who was cavelier or casual about her decision.
I have met such a woman. My own sister. She and her husband were criminals, wanted in multiple states, and hit upon the scheme of "selling" babies to support themselves and assist in hiding from the law. I have more-than-a-few nieces and nephews sold this way. Whenever their plans did not work out, she aborted the child.
I don't take her actions as representative of normal humans.
I am nearly 57. I will go to jail, if that is what it takes, to defend safe and legal abortion.
Let me know when/if you need any help, or need busted out. You probably know where I live :-)
... this law is stating that a particularly invasive form of ultrasound must be used in order to date the pregnancy.
Let's be clear. This law is the government ordering women to be raped.
I have met such a woman. My own sister. She and her husband were criminals, wanted in multiple states, and hit upon the scheme of "selling" babies to support themselves and assist in hiding from the law. I have more-than-a-few nieces and nephews sold this way. Whenever their plans did not work out, she aborted the child.
I don't take her actions as representative of normal humans.
Let me know when/if you need any help, or need busted out. You probably know where I live :-)
My goodness, Bae. I am so sorry to hear about your sister - wow... Definitely Not representative of normal human behavior.
And thank you. Your offer is kind, and very generous. I will let you know, but be warned: I am a hell raiser when needed!
I am hearing you, redfox. I am hearing you.
Let's be clear. This law is the government ordering women to be raped.
This is particularly inflammatory language, and the term "rape" is extreme in and of itself. I do not want to necessarily classify a particularly invasive procedure as rape because of what rape is.
That being said, since rape is about power, dehumanizing the person being raped, and violence -- this procedure qualifies for at least two of three.
And for women who are survivors of abuse (sexual or otherwise) or rape and incest, this procedure would be particularly difficult and likely cause them more trauma.
This Virginia requirement is mad. I wonder how much this adds to the cost of an abortion procedure?
Edited to add:
While I see that the final Virginia bill does require an ultrasound procedure, a patient can choose to have an abdominal one. This is not the intrusive version, yes? I think that if Planned Parenthood always requires it's less outrageous than I originally thought. I would think that Planned Parenthood would be the target of outrage or at minimum some grumbling, but instead it is universally represented on this SL site as the friend and savior of women.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/24/10500232-in-battle-over-reproductive-rights-female-legislators-fight-back-with-a-bit-of-humor
Sperm are people too. Well, okay...a half a person.
But where do you begin defining "life" ? Such an unsolvable puzzle.
This Virginia requirement is mad... I would think that Planned Parenthood would be the target of outrage or at minimum some grumbling, but instead it is universally represented on this SL site as the friend and savior of women.
Mad is a great way to describe this! And, yes, PP has been & is a friend & savior to many women; men too. My DSD, myself, and most of my female friends have been able to get very low cost health care and contraception, and including STI/STD testing.
Sperm are people too. Well, okay...a half a person.
But where do you begin defining "life" ? Such an unsolvable puzzle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
I totally thought of that, too, Bae! LOL
If there are options to get ultrasounds (abdominal vs vaginal), then I can be cool with that. So long as it's for dating the pregnancy and allowing it to follow along the laws (which to me is more about the providers than the women who want the procedure -- making sure that they are out of legal liability, or rather, functioning within the law), then I can go there.
If it's about "showing women their babies!" and trying to convince them otherwise, or simply enforcing a particularly invasive procedure as part of this already difficult process, then. . . well problematic.
flowerseverywhere
3-8-12, 6:56am
Here's a solution to the abortion problem.
What if every man refused to have sex with a woman without a condom and spermacide. condoms are less than $1 apiece at our local walmart. The effectiveness is somewhere in the high nineties when combined with a spermacide and without a spermacide somewhere in the 80's. And they could tell the woman, if we are one of those couples who have an unwanted pregnancy, don't worry. I'll help support you and the baby, be a loving father and life partner. Because that is my responsiblity as a human being and you will never have to get government assistance, or the kids free school lunch because I'll do anything, work two jobs etc. to help you.
Problem solved. Men can hold their head high and beat their chests and yell "no more unwanted pregnancies, we've taken care of it with our half a person." Plus they will solve a lot of the welfare and food stamp problem.
You know, back on the issue of vaginal ultrasound. I've had several due to a medical condition. Not very pleasant but certainly a good diagnostic tool. I would think especially for a young girl who has little sexual experience it is really downright invasive. They have to move the probe around to get good pictures and it is pretty creepy to be honest.
Have appreciated your very rational postings on this, Zoebird.
flowerseverywhere
3-8-12, 7:53am
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/24/10500232-in-battle-over-reproductive-rights-female-legislators-fight-back-with-a-bit-of-humor
Sperm are people too. Well, okay...a half a person.
But where do you begin defining "life" ? Such an unsolvable puzzle.
If sperm are half a person then a man should have strict limits on the amount of pills for erectile dysfunction they have access to (either by insurance or by purchasing them out of pocket at the pharmacy). Maybe two or three when a woman is at her peak fertility. Because if you have sex for any other reason than trying to get someone pregnant then you are killing half a person, in fact lots of half a persons. A regular serial killer.
See how ridiculous we can make all these arguments.
This is a clear case of government over reach and interference. They are now forcing this unnecessary, intrusive medical procedure on these women. Wow! Talk about over reaching government!
So, I think we've established the point that an ultrasound is a valid safety and diagnostic procedure for women seeking an abortion. So much so that even Planned Parenthood requires it before they will perform the procedure.
That begs the question, what is it about this mandate that troubles you so? Is it because you feel that there should be no governmental oversight of the medical industry? Or could it be that if an ultrasound is performed, the patient may, in some cases, confuse the image of unwanted tissue with a baby?
So, I think we've established the point that an ultrasound is a valid safety and diagnostic procedure for women seeking an abortion. So much so that even Planned Parenthood requires it before they will perform the procedure.
That begs the question, what is it about this mandate that troubles you so? Is it because you feel that there should be no governmental oversight of the medical industry? Or could it be that if an ultrasound is performed, the patient may, in some cases, confuse the image of unwanted tissue with a baby?
Glad you asked Alan, because apparently you don't get it. PP does an ultrasound strictly to determine the age of the zygote to help the doctor in the abortion. The state of Virginia demands the ultrasound because Virginia women are too stupid, apparently, to know what's in there. You yourself confirmed that suspicion. It's the intent and the reason that is so demeaning to women.
What a doctor does in the course of a medical procedure to preform that procedure is up to him and his patient. Arguing that the state is somehow looking out for women by ordering this mandate is completely absurd and insulting in the suggestion. But, someone who thinks Virginia women are stupid would think all women are stupid.
Gee, I didn't realize the Virginia Government was so CARING and personally involved in specific medical procedures to the point of mandates to specific parts of those medical procedures. I didn't realize the Governor was such an expert on medical procedures, specifically GYN, that he feels comfortable issuing mandates in those procedures. I wonder which other medical procedures he's involved in? Think maybe he has signed a mandate specifying how many stitches and how close they should be in heart surgery? Or maybe his expertise is proctology considering how far 'up there' he likes to be.
I'm not surprised you would defend this Alan. Your blind ideology, in the end, trumps everything, including your own war cry against 'government mandates'. A discussion such as this serves to ferret out the true nature of someones 'convictions' and where those convictions come from.
I have to say though, even though I generally disagree with bae on most things, he has shown a consistent respect for the women in his life, and all women really. In this he follows no ideology but his own conscience and heart. I admire that.
flowerseverywhere
3-8-12, 10:09am
So, I think we've established the point that an ultrasound is a valid safety and diagnostic procedure for women seeking an abortion. So much so that even Planned Parenthood requires it before they will perform the procedure.
That begs the question, what is it about this mandate that troubles you so? Is it because you feel that there should be no governmental oversight of the medical industry? Or could it be that if an ultrasound is performed, the patient may, in some cases, confuse the image of unwanted tissue with a baby?
because it is being decided by lawmakers, not physicians and medical personnel.
Physicians go to school for years and years to specialize in a field. They see things and draw on their experience to develop standards of practice that are often referred to best practices. Some decide not to participate in organizations or practices, or even hospitals that are affiliated with abortions, tubal ligation, or those that perform a vasectomies and distribute birth control and that is their right. Some physicians believe in medical intervention to prevent current and future pregnancies, and some of them in my personal experience believe in God and attend a house of worship.
So, I think we've established the point that an ultrasound is a valid safety and diagnostic procedure for women seeking an abortion. So much so that even Planned Parenthood requires it before they will perform the procedure.
That begs the question, what is it about this mandate that troubles you so? Is it because you feel that there should be no governmental oversight of the medical industry? Or could it be that if an ultrasound is performed, the patient may, in some cases, confuse the image of unwanted tissue with a baby?
The Virginia government did redefine the reason for the ultrasound - and it had nothing to do with safety or diagnosis. It does take the argument against government involvement in healthcare and turn it on it's head.
I'm not surprised you would defend this Alan. Your blind ideology, in the end, trumps everything, including your own war cry against 'government mandates'. A discussion such as this serves to ferret out the true nature of someones 'convictions' and where those convictions come from.
Actually it's more curiosity than ideology. Sure, I think abortion is wrong at a certain point, but I'm not sure where that point is so would prefer to err on the side of life.
What I find curious is the way this debate is always discussed in such a one sided manner. Lately we've heard lots of talk about "invasive procedures" bordering on "rape" when discussing everyday medical practices. I've read that many in the medical industry are now concerned about their ability to provide care without being accused of rape as a result of the irresponsible language so many are promoting.
I'm also concerned with the long term effects of our failure to address the issue of abortion in a reasonable manner. A group of medical ethicists are now promoting the idea that there is no moral distinction between killing a newborn baby and performing a legal abortion. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/29/medical-ethicists-propose-after-birth-abortion-law_n_1309985.html
In an atmosphere where the only part of the equation you're allowed to talk about is the woman, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it certainly gives me pause to wonder.
I know it's an election year and the other side absolutely must be criticized and extreme rhetoric must be manufactured and distributed, but is it really worth the damage to society that it brings?
because it is being decided by lawmakers, not physicians and medical personnel.
Oh, I don't disagree on that point. But let's be consistent in our beliefs. I must purchase an insurance policy that covers pregnancy, abortion services and STD's even though I had a vasectomy over 25 years ago, my wife is past child bearing age and we are faithful to each other. The government mandates it and I must do it simply because they say so. Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?
Government controlled healthcare is sure going to be interesting. Many may find they don't like the power it gives to those in control.
The one saving grace about this issue and all of the discussion about government interference, is that it IS a state doing the legislating. Big Nanny G (the Feds) are not involved and thank god for that. At LEAST the discussion is at the place it should be--the state of Virginia.
Government controlled healthcare is sure going to be interesting. Many may find they don't like the power it gives to those in control.
It's been going on for a long time. Standards, regulations, licensing, unfunded mandates (government is why an emergency room has to admit everyone). Should we dump all of it?
Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?
As difficult as it is to arrive at a yes or no answer to such a complex issue, I think it would be interesting to treat this as true/false rather than an essay question just to see where it comes out. If pushed, I have to say "yes" precisely because of examples like this. It's interesting Alan, this is one debate where you and I do not share a core belief, but still tend to agree on a desired level of government participation (I think).
Oh, I don't disagree on that point. But let's be consistent in our beliefs. I must purchase an insurance policy that covers pregnancy, abortion services and STD's even though I had a vasectomy over 25 years ago, my wife is past child bearing age and we are faithful to each other. The government mandates it and I must do it simply because they say so. Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?
And i must buy insurance that covers motorcycle riders, who WILL eventually have an accident, although I don't ride a motorcycle, and insurance that covers heart issues, even though I don't want to pay for someone else stuffing their faces with twinkies and ho ho's. I don't plan to have a vasectomy but I'm pretty sure insurance covers that too. Welcome to the real world Alan. Each of us has to pay for a lot of things we may not believe in, or plan to personally use, but that's just life in a modern, progressive country. And until you can think of a way to pick and choose all your health care coverage, including all the things that will happen in the future, for you and your wife, then we have to work with what we have. And, oh by the way, no one is asking for FREE birth control pills, GYN or anything. These people pay for insurance, as in coverage.
Ok, you apparently work for an insurance company, or own an insurance company, or invest in one, or maybe your wife does..I get it. Otherwise you wouldn't go so often, consistently to the mat for insurance companies. People of America...bad, insurance companies..good. And I suppose you can justify in your own mind the whole "government is bad, except of course when it's forcing my beliefs'.
Yea, we pretty much see where you are coming from. Not a whole lot of nuance there.:+1:
Ok, you apparently work for an insurance company, or own an insurance company, or invest in one, or maybe your wife does..I get it. Otherwise you wouldn't go so often, consistantly to the mat for insurance companies. People of America...bad, insurance companies..good. And I suppose you can justify in your own mind the whole "governemtn is bad, except of course when it's forcing
Where would you get an idea like that?
Let's try discussing instead of throwing out baseless accusations, OK?
ApatheticNoMore
3-8-12, 1:05pm
Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?
Well most people are not such hardcore propertarians (property absolutist) that they believe that having to pay for healthcare they don't use is as bad as being forced to have medical procedures done with their body. I.e. ownership of one's body is at a higher level of ownership than that of property (which isn't necessarily to take the extreme opposite position that all property should be abolished or anything either). So really the only analagous thing we have currently would be vacines and they have strong public health rationale. There's other loose analogies that could be made but none 100%.
Eliminating all government mandates? I'm not sure it would be all bad, though again a few things have public health rational (ie protecting the whole community from contagious disaeses). I guess taken to a libertarian extreme no mandates would also mean no liscensing even. Ok I'm not sure how that would work out, but I'm not absolutely certain it would be bad either. I'm only absolutely sure you have market failures in cases of externalities.
Ok, you apparently work for an insurance company, or own an insurance company, or invest in one, or maybe your wife does..I get it. Otherwise you wouldn't go so often, consistantly to the mat for insurance companies. People of America...bad, insurance companies..good.
Well there is a pretty severe contradiction in the liberal position arguing insurance companies bad therefore .... things that are not currently done through insurance should be done through insurance companies. My personal opinon: insurance companies @#$# everything up and the less things done by them the better.
As for abortion as such: I don't believe it's ok and all fine and dandy or anything, I have some moral problems with it. I just think there is no *legistlative* solution.
flowerseverywhere
3-8-12, 1:55pm
Oh, I don't disagree on that point. But let's be consistent in our beliefs. I must purchase an insurance policy that covers pregnancy, abortion services and STD's even though I had a vasectomy over 25 years ago, my wife is past child bearing age and we are faithful to each other. The government mandates it and I must do it simply because they say so. Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?
a very complicated question but there are two issues. One mandating health care and one mandating paying for health care.
If a smoker gets lung cancer I have no recourse but to chip in for their care, as well as drinkers and drug users, people who expose themselves to disease due to their sexual habits for example despite the fact I do none of these things. What about a crack addicted baby? Or someone who attempts suicide? Or who has a psychiatric illness and won't take meds (not uncommon in my experience) and cannot work.
I think what you are talking about has so many layers, many of which are tied to religious and moral beliefs about who has the right to live and have every treatment and test done for them regardless of their ability to pay.
As long as our system remains as it is I cannot disagree with the requirement that we all pay health insurance- we do now anyway indirectly.
In order not to require paying to insurance I think we have to switch to a "let them die" model.
If you have cancer that requires expensive treatment and did not make paying for insurance a priority or could not afford it then too bad so sad.
If you show up at the ER you better show your current insurance card to the guard or die on the sidewalk.
If a baby is born prematurely unless you have insurance no expensive treatment.
Get my meaning? I don't see how we can have it both ways.
for the question of the government requiring certain treatment right now if you are diagnosed with cancer if you are an adult of legal age you can walk out of the MD office, get your affairs in order and wait to die. You do not have to be treated for cancer. Physicians can say "at your age a colonoscopy/mammogram/ekg is appropriate" but you are not required to have it done if you don't want to, even if it is really the best thing for you and you have symptoms. No one makes you take your statin or blood pressure medication. You make a decision and you accept the consequences.
the government at any level requiring a sonogram crosses over that line in my opinion because the purpose is to shame and "educate" a stupid woman who doesn't know any better.
A physician may have a reason to require a test based on their medical expertise before they perform a procedure. If you are having surgery tomorrow and won't get bloodwork and a chest x-ray done, the surgeon may say sorry, it is not the standard of care and I won't operate. You are making a choice and the surgeon is making a choice.
I would love to be able to have a checklist for my health insurance and taxes about what I want to be paid for. But this is the real world and part of price I pay for living in the US.
I'm also concerned with the long term effects of our failure to address the issue of abortion in a reasonable manner. A group of medical ethicists are now promoting the idea that there is no moral distinction between killing a newborn baby and performing a legal abortion. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/29/medical-ethicists-propose-after-birth-abortion-law_n_1309985.html
In an atmosphere where the only part of the equation you're allowed to talk about is the woman, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it certainly gives me pause to wonder.
I cannot say where you've been in this convo over the last 50 years, but abortion has been researched and talked about in great detail during this time. The last 39 years, since Roe v. Wade, the abortion debate has been robust. It is reasonable when resting upon science and medicine; not religion, not private moral convictions, not the desire to whip voters into a frenzy. There is an amazing amount of research and literature addressing abortion from scientific and medical ethics.
Abortion has been practised for thousands & thousands of years across human history. When I was pregnant and considering abortion, I researched this, looking for herbal abortifacients. Abortion will continue to be practised. It is a medically known procedure, and the law has declared it to be a privacy matter between a woman and her PCP.
Until those born male can get pregnant, those born female (regardless of one's current gender identity), in other words those of us with a uterus, are the authorities. One of the most unfortunate aspects of a sexist, misogynistic society is the control of women's reproduction by men in authority, such as seen by the reprehensible actions of the state of Virginia. Those men who are so concerned about abortion need to take a stand against state control of women's bodies.
Because of course, in the end, we all want for women to bear wanted, chosen children, in safety and in love. Bae's apparently sociopathic sister aside, women do not choose abortion lightly. In fact, abortion can be seen as necessary due to a failure of these:
Good, affordable prevention based heath care
Access to affordable, safe & effective contraception
Respectful, accurate & thorough sex education in schools
Respectful, non-assaultive and non-coercive sexual relationships
Safe and affordable "morning after" options, like Plan B
Universal respect for women, and for our rights to be sexual with whomever, whenever, and however we choose
The current flame wars around abortion will be rendered meaningless when sexism is dead, and women are equal in every respect. Work towards that end, and you'll meet your objective.
Happy International Women's Day!
ApatheticNoMore
3-8-12, 2:18pm
The current flame wars around abortion will be rendered meaningless when sexism is dead, and women are equal in every respect. Work towards that end, and you'll meet your objective.
or when there is a technological solution, a birth control option so easy to take and with so little side effects that it's just such a no-brainer that even the no-brainers take it (really as it is I have minimal sympathy for people who don't even take precautions).
Yea, we pretty much see where you are coming from. Not a whole lot of nuance there.:+1:
We?
As for abortion as such: I don't believe it's ok and all fine and dandy or anything, I have some moral problems with it. I just think there is no *legistlative* solution.
You are making an important point here. Conflating legal/illegal with moral/immoral leads to any number of fatuities. Short of divine intervention, I don't see how the moral issue will ever be definitively settled. Honestly, I find many in the "pro-choice" camp to be as rigidly orthodox and mindlessly intolerant as many of their opposition, but I think we ultimately need to err on the side of individual conscience. I would prefer others to apply that same rule in demanding I help pay for their choice, but that's politics.
Of course, I will vote my own conscience. I don't see that as "imposing my values". I see that as living consistently with my convictions.
Until those born male can get pregnant, those born female (regardless of one's current gender identity), in other words those of us with a uterus, are the authorities.
Does that restriction apply as well to sterile or post-menopausal women?
I cannot say where you've been in this convo over the last 50 years, but abortion has been researched and talked about in great detail during this time.
But it has been a one sided conversation. Many people believe that there are two individuals involved in the abortion debate, the mother and the child. We are not allowed to talk about the child for fear of making the mother feel guilty for her choices, which is exactly why the sonogram issue is of paramont importance to the pro-abortion crowd.
Until those born male can get pregnant, those born female (regardless of one's current gender identity), in other words those of us with a uterus, are the authorities.
Yes, we've heard that in just about every conceivable conversation on these forums. I'm fully aware that many believe that as a white male, I am not allowed opinions on subjects involving women or people of different ethnic backgrounds. I don't accept the premise, but I am keenly aware of the opinion.
One of the most unfortunate aspects of a sexist, misogynistic society is the control of women's reproduction by men in authority, such as seen by the reprehensible actions of the state of Virginia.
I'm always surprised to see people cast themselves as victims to those evil "men in authority", when it would be just as easy to consider that someone, regardless of gender, was interested in protecting the unborn and actually had no interest in controlling women.
Universal respect for women, and for our rights to be sexual with whomever, whenever, and however we choose
I certainly have respect for women and their rights, but I understand that each right comes with a corresponding responsibility. You can't enjoy one without accepting the other, otherwise it's not a "right" but rather an extravagence.
[QUOTE=redfox;71449] The current flame wars around abortion will be rendered meaningless when sexism is dead, and women are equal in every respect. Work towards that end, and you'll meet your objective.
QUOTE]
For many women, myself included, the right to have an abortion has nothing to do with sexism or equality. Many anti-abortion women are ardent feminists and supporters of equal rights and opportunities for all as well as the choice to use contraceptives as they choose - including absinence. Ones personal sense of morality and ethics has nothing to do with equality, sexism or gender.
So, I think we've established the point that an ultrasound is a valid safety and diagnostic procedure for women seeking an abortion. So much so that even Planned Parenthood requires it before they will perform the procedure.
That begs the question, what is it about this mandate that troubles you so? Is it because you feel that there should be no governmental oversight of the medical industry? Or could it be that if an ultrasound is performed, the patient may, in some cases, confuse the image of unwanted tissue with a baby?
Here are the issues about the mandate that trouble me:
1. that the initial information I could find asserted that it MUST BE a vaginal ultrasound, which is particularly invasive.
2. that the purpose of the ultrasound is not simply to date the pregnancy to come into compliance with law and assist in the procedure being safe and effective for the person seeking it, but rather to "show them the baby" in an attempt to convince them to keep the pregnancy.
most women who are seeking abortions, as red fox has asserted, are very much aware that they are terminating a pregnancy. They know that it is a baby inside of them. They are not coming to this decision easily -- and very few of them are like Bae's family member.
For some women, doing this might be tantamount to a form of emotional abuse. It is already difficult, it is already a decision that they have struggled to make. It is already hard enough to have to go through the procedure (which is also invasive and so emotionally extreme for most people). And if the woman is terminating a pregnancy of an abuser, she will not likely want to see that baby at all. . .as she is already in an emotionally vulnerable space.
I'm not calling her weak. If a man is raped and goes to the hospital to go through the procedures related to collecting evidence, it is extremely emotionally difficult for him to have that evidence taken -- photographs, semen samples removed -- not to mention the repair work that may need to be done to his body. It is the same for a man as it is a woman.
But with a woman, it may well happen that she ends up pregnant, and wants to then terminate that pregnancy. A vaginal ultrasound and being forced to look at the image and have it explained to her?
Is that not just putting salt int he wound?
And even for myself. I'm thoughtful -- you know this. If I chose to have an abortion of a baby -- yes, I know very well, I have a son! -- it would have been a torturous process to get to that decision. If, having made it, I'm then forced into counseling where someone shames and chastises me for this choice, and then I'm forced to a vaginal ultrasound as an element of demonstrating power over me (that's how I perceive it), and then forced to look at the images so that i MIGHT change my mind?
It would be torment. Pure and simple.
It's hard enough as it is. Why do we have to make it so much harder on people?
But it has been a one sided conversation. Many people believe that there are two individuals involved in the abortion debate, the mother and the child. We are not allowed to talk about the child for fear of making the mother feel guilty for her choices, which is exactly why the sonogram issue is of paramont importance to the pro-abortion crowd.
We can talk about the child. I will openly.
First, we can talk about when the child exists as a human being. Some say conception. Some say quickening. Some say at the first breath. Some say it's somewhere in between. Some cultures say it's after 2 years (until then, the child is seen as an angel or god, deciding whether or not to continue in the body -- this is an old tradition, likely developed because so many children died before age 2 due to disease; that being said "infanticide" is also considered appropriate in this culture).
So, this is a philosophical question. It's a question of what you believe.
My personal belief has two components: 1. philosophical and 2. scientific based on viability.
I define the second one based on certain technologies that I accept -- which is to say that while a baby at 22 or 24 weeks gestation can be saved via modern medicine, the expense and value of that process for the infant may not be appropriate (this is philosophical again).
Thus, I may say that I feel comfortable with a woman having an abortion no questions asked up until quickening (that's when I think "life" begins so to speak), and that it's likely appropriate for her to have an abortion much later in the pregnancy up until the child could survive -- effectively with minimal intervention medically -- outside of her womb (say, 33 weeks?).
But LEGALLY, because there are differences of opinion about when a person is a person (And therefore a citizen to whom rights and responsibilities attach -- and protections), and the states are defining this based on their perception of viability.
Because the beliefs are diverse, i think fewer controls and more allowance for individual choice should take precedent *legally* speaking, over other people's beliefs.
Alan, essentially, you are saying that YOUR beliefs about when life begins and when the baby is a baby should legally trump everyone else's beliefs about it.
But it doesn't work that way. As a community, we decide where that line will be drawn, and some people won't like it one way (catholics -- it should begin at conception!) and some people won't like it the other way (jewish idea -- it should begin at the first breath!). meaning, the catholics want a more strict standard, and if it's not strict enough they get pissy about it, and the jewish people might want a more liberal standard, and therefore might get pissy about that. And most of us are quibbling over viability somewhere in the middle.
So, because of this diversity, I think that legalization is important AND there shouldn't be aspects of trying to stop women per se. I agree with things like counseling and support and information for women making this choice. They need clear information, and support and counseling. It isn't an easy process for them.
But I don't think it should have coercive, guilt-based elements and shame-based elements that this law seeks to have -- and so also do many other proposed laws that catholics (among others) would advocate.
Yes, we've heard that in just about every conceivable conversation on these forums. I'm fully aware that many believe that as a white male, I am not allowed opinions on subjects involving women or people of different ethnic backgrounds. I don't accept the premise, but I am keenly aware of the opinion.
I think you are allowed an opinion. I do not think that your opinion should necessarily dictate the law.
I'm always surprised to see people cast themselves as victims to those evil "men in authority", when it would be just as easy to consider that someone, regardless of gender, was interested in protecting the unborn and actually had no interest in controlling women.
But as you said before, there are TWO people involved, and ONE that we for-certain know is a person in every way. This person -- for certain -- is a citizen with legal rights, responsibilities and protections.
While you want to talk about an unborn child, you may not be speaking about a legal person, with rights, responsibilities, and protections.
And if you want to extend rights to that unborn child, those rights may take away or inhibit the rights of the person whom we know is a person with legal rights.
I certainly have respect for women and their rights, but I understand that each right comes with a corresponding responsibility. You can't enjoy one without accepting the other, otherwise it's not a "right" but rather an extravagence.
This argument asserts that the woman has the responsibility to either A. prevent pregnancy or B. continue a pregnancy. But there is an option C. The option to terminate a pregnancy. This is also part of her responsibility.
It doesn't make sex an extravagance. Birth control methods fail. Pregnancies can be harmful and dangerous to women. A woman can know whether or not she can continue a pregnancy -- for any number of reasons.
legally, she has rights, responsibilities, and protections that the unborn child does not (because we cannot define that child legally without it impacting the legal rights of the person who is a legal person) -- and that includes her rights to make choices regarding A, B, and C.
Laws that seek to inhibit C under the guise of her "taking responsibility" are really, and actually, simply trying to control women's decisions and sexual practices.
Is that not just putting salt int he wound?
I think that was the sole intent of the legislation.
I think that was the sole intent of the legislation.
Or bending women to men's will--a popular sport for many. Really, it's all about control.
my long response wasnt clear in it's first section.
There are generally three designations when we are talking about both people involved, and only one that is relevant to governance -- an individual's legal designation.
So, the three elements in consideration are: 1. personal philosophical; 2. scientific information regarding viability; and 3. legal designation.
It is the legal designation that is quibbled about based on 1 and 2. This legal designation determines when the unborn child becomes a citizen with rights, responsibilities, and protections.
The third aspect, the reality is that there are two people involved about whom we are speaking WHEN the unborn child has a legal designation -- not personal, philosophical, and not even the technological advances that allow for viability.
But, the other person in the equation has full legal designation. The woman is fully designated and has the full rights, responsibilites, and protections.
And those rights include the ability to take responsibility via birth control, continuing a pregnancy, or choosing not to.
Yes, we've heard that in just about every conceivable conversation on these forums. I'm fully aware that many believe that as a white male, I am not allowed opinions on subjects involving women or people of different ethnic backgrounds. I don't accept the premise, but I am keenly aware of the opinion.
Extending identity politics to the internal organ level does seem a bit extreme.
flowerseverywhere
3-9-12, 2:28pm
Extending identity politics to the internal organ level does seem a bit extreme.
Everyone has the right to their opinion, however if you read through the thread a popular opinion of the women who posted they felt like the law was meant to shame, humiliate and educate stupid women who didn't know enough to realize they were carrying a fetus. You can argue until the end of the world, but the fact of the matter is women were talking how they felt, as many have experienced pregnancy, pregnancy scares, decisions to raise children alone with no help from the sperm donor and some even opted for termination. Sometimes the man was involved in these situations, but sometimes they walked away or did not care. It happens. A woman cannot walk away. A few make the decision to give a baby up for adoption, but still it involves carrying the child to term and going through the birthing process.
Like if I said something about how a black young man feels when someone crosses the street when he is walking down minding his own business, or how someone who might possibly be middle eastern who is pulled out of an airplane line and there luggage rifled through, or someone of color who is stopped because a robbery was close by and just by the color of their skin they are "suspicious". My empathy only goes so far because none of these things happen to me.
Of course I can understand how they might feel, and how people feel who are opposed to abortion or believe in a certain god, but unless you walk in someone's shoes you really don't truly know.
flowerseverywhere
3-9-12, 2:59pm
Just another thought,
men can stop abortion. They can not have sex unless they have protection, and if it fails they can vow to raise the child themselves if need be. They can abstain until they are married and only have sex when the intent is to produce offspring.
Men have the power if they want it. Maybe that is who this whole campaign to stop abortion should be directed to.
Just another thought,
men can stop abortion. They can not have sex unless they have protection, and if it fails they can vow to raise the child themselves if need be. They can abstain until they are married and only have sex when the intent is to produce offspring.
Men have the power if they want it. Maybe that is who this whole campaign to stop abortion should be directed to.
+1000
Here is a slightly different take on the issue:
"Be of good cheer. The demographics are favorable. That is, the intellectual liberals are not reproducing themselves, while the homeschooler population is growing. A long time ago David Riesman characterized Western nations as those with “incipient population decline.” Actually, though, that holds for just about everyone. The wealthy Muslim nations aren’t expanding. Their per capita income rates are really low, and if they rise the fertility rate drops. The population bomb has hit them and over time it will be more and more difficult to support an aging population that lives longer.
Of course civilizations die for reasons other than lack of population growth. Western cultural weapons of mass destruction work on the West as well as the Middle East. The culture that many of use grew up in has eroded terribly, and is not being transmitted to the next generation through the public schools. The notions that freedom is important, that government ought to be limited, that self government is preferable as well as cheap – these are not being transmitted. Note the health care debate. The idea of freedom and responsibility doesn’t seem to enter it.
But the home school population is growing, and for the most part they do pass along the values that made America what it was.
It is not yet time to give up."
Dr. Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D.
March 8, 2012
Best,
Rodger
Rodger, I am confused! Please say more about your post...
Sounds like Pat Buchanan's stuff, poorly paraphrased. European values in decline, sky is falling, etc.
flowerseverywhere
3-9-12, 9:04pm
Rodger, fill us in on your message.
Anyone see this today?
http://news.yahoo.com/papers-debate-doonesbury-series-abortion-law-214114722.html the doonsbury cartoon about the anti-abortion legislation, they call the transvaginal ultrasound probe the "shaming wand"
"Texas' law does not specify the type of sonogram a woman must receive, but an invasive transvaginal ultrasound is necessary to meet requirements that the doctor show the woman an image of the fetus, describe its features and make the fetal heartbeat audible in the first trimester. The procedure uses a wand inserted in the vagina to yield an image instead of a wand rubbed over a woman's belly."
Rodger, I am confused! Please say more about your post...
Dr. Pournelle is a paleo-conservative. He is also a Roman Catholic who disagrees with the stance of the Roman Catholic church vis a vis contraception and reproductive issues.
I believe that what he said is clear enough, if you take some time to think through the ramifications of what he said. Suggest you read his blog and draw your own conclusions:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com
While Dr. Pournelle is certainly not infallible, he has made some remarkable predictions and observations that have subsequently proved to be correct. Examples:
1) 1983 - Personal computers by the year 2000 would have the computational power of a multi-million dollar 1983 Cray supercomputer for less than $10,000 (he was right, but the cost was about $2000)
2) 1983 - By the year 2000, there will be a worldwide network more or less similar to the ARPANET (Internet/World Wide Web)
3) 1983 - By the year 2000, a person willing to pay for it will be able to find an answer on this network for any question for which the answer is known or can be computed
4) 1985 - The Soviet Union has passed its peak and its economy will most likely fall apart suddenly, followed by the demise of the Soviet Union itself (Dr. Pournelle did not expect it to happen for several decades at the earliest rather than 6 years later, however)
5) 1983 - Pournelle's Law: One user, at least one CPU (predicted multi-core processors and networked CPUs)
6) 1980 - Pournelle's Dictum: The prime purpose of any government program is to pay government workers & their friends
7) 1984 - Pournelle's Dictum: Apple either makes things very, very simple, or impossible
8) (Murphy's Law) Pournelle's Law of Costs and Schedules: Everything costs more and takes longer
9) Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy: In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.
10) "Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free. And Democracy is not liberty. Sometimes democracy is the best protection for liberty, but that is not always so; there can be and often are conflicts between liberty and democracy."
11) 1963 - Pournelle Political Axes Chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart
Whether one agrees with Dr. Pournelle on any given issue or not, he does cause one to think about why one believes as one does.
Best,
Rodger
Sounds like Pat Buchanan's stuff, poorly paraphrased. European values in decline, sky is falling, etc.
"Be of good cheer. The demographics are favorable..." equals "European values in decline, sky is falling, etc."????
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa75/mtemot/deadhorsebeat_2.gif
Really?
Best,
Rodger
Thanks, Rodger. I am more interested in why & what you find significant about Dr. Pournelle. I can read his writings; you are a member of this community! Therefore, for me, your thinking is what I care about. Sorry I was more explicit about that the first time 'round.
~Rebecca
Thanks, Rodger. I am more interested in why & what you find significant about Dr. Pournelle. I can read his writings; you are a member of this community! Therefore, for me, your thinking is what I care about. Sorry I was more explicit about that the first time 'round.
~Rebecca
If those of a liberal political bent are failing to even replace their numbers and those of a more conservative political bent are increasing in numbers and many of them are not being indoctrinated in the public school system, what implications do you think this will have over the next 30 to 40 years in the social and political spheres?
Consider that the majority of immigrants to this country seem to have much more conservative social values than the norm for those who are born in this country. What effects will the confluence of immigrants and the rising number of home schooled adults of a conservative social bent have?
Best,
Rodger
Of course we could end up like Romania, where abortion was illegal and orphanages overflowed, but children don't necessarily reflect their parents' politics, so I guess we'll have to wait and see. There are certainly those (Buchanan being one) who see imminent decline in the idea of non-European immigrants having large families, while the rest of slack off, so to speak. According to recent polls, President Obama leads six to one over any Republican candidate with Hispanic Americans, for what it's worth.
ApatheticNoMore
3-10-12, 12:50am
If those of a liberal political bent are failing to even replace their numbers and those of a more conservative political bent are increasing in numbers and many of them are not being indoctrinated in the public school system, what implications do you think this will have over the next 30 to 40 years in the social and political spheres?
Probably perish in a massive famine caused by overpopulation, dwindling resources, and global warming caused droughts and crop failures. And they *still* won't believe that global warming is real!
*ahem* most of my friends are liberal, and most of them homeschool, and several of them have 3 or more children, and several of them are adopting as well.
likewise, most of my conservative friends have fewer children (and more stuff) and send their kids to public or catholic schools. Most of them have 3 or fewer children, and most of them are not even considering adoption. Only one of them is considering adoption.
"just saying!" lol ;)
flowerseverywhere
3-10-12, 10:41am
Interesting perspective Rodger.
Perhaps women who are educated in public schools and are liberal minded and independent will be the ones to turn out to the polls, start to run for offices and support their politics, whereas those women who are raised to become mothers and continue to multiply will be too busy to take a role in politics. None of us know for sure.
There are a certain amount of men and women who are raised to be one way or the other yet rebel and take on values unlike those they are raised with.
*ahem* most of my friends are liberal, and most of them homeschool, and several of them have 3 or more children, and several of them are adopting as well.
likewise, most of my conservative friends have fewer children (and more stuff) and send their kids to public or catholic schools. Most of them have 3 or fewer children, and most of them are not even considering adoption. Only one of them is considering adoption.
"just saying!" lol ;)
Yeah, a friend of mine who labels herself a "hippie anarchist" home schooled her partner's child for a number of years. No conservatives in that bunch!
There are so many variables in the development of an individuals values. I am not convinced that the family is the definitve influence.
There was a book written on peer group influence some years back: The Nurture Assumption, by Judith Rich Harrison-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=parents-peers-children
I believe her premise was that peers edge out parents after children reach a certain age.
flowerseverywhere
3-10-12, 2:20pm
There was a book written on peer group influence some years back: The Nurture Assumption, by Judith Rich Harrison-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=parents-peers-children
I believe her premise was that peers edge out parents after children reach a certain age.
while I believe that in my area we have excellent schools so those that homeschool seem to do so for religious reasons. Their kids really don't mix much with others that are not affiliated with the church. An old co-worker spent much of his time when not at work at church activities. His girls wore homemade long calico skirts and braids and they went places like the library but did not mix much with others and the girls are raised to be good wives, mothers and members of the church. The boys seem to be raised to be providers and had great skills in woodworking, gardening and animals.
I ran into him last year at a fiddle concert with several other families and while the children were polite and very well behaved they kept to their little group. Makes me wonder what will happen as they get older. He used to ride the bus to work and read the bible along the way. Perhaps one of the most patient, least materialistic beyond the basic shelter and food needs, and kindest people I have been acquainted with.
There are so many variables in the development of an individuals values. I am not convinced that the family is the definitve influence.
Even if they are the definitve influence, for many people it appears their goal is to not be like their family.
Perhaps women who are educated in public schools and are liberal minded and independent will be the ones to turn out to the polls, start to run for offices and support their politics, whereas those women who are raised to become mothers and continue to multiply will be too busy to take a role in politics. None of us know for sure.
My daughter has been largely homeschooled so far, is 15, and is a sophomore in high school.
Our reasons for homeschooling were not religious, and we weren't trying to raise our daughter to become a mother, multiply, and be too busy to take a role in politics, or any other community leadership position.
Rather the opposite. It was to provide a high quality of education in academics and civics and practical skills, so that she could do her duty to the Republic.
At the age of 12, she scored 95th+ percentile results on the SATs, compared to college-bound seniors...
She understands multiple languages, including Spanish, Latin, Greek, and several forms of Egyptian.
She plays several different musical instruments in several local musical groups, actual groups that perform on stage for real audiences. Most of the other musicians are adults. She and my wife are off with one of the groups today performing in a nearby town, and one of the symphonic pieces they are playing was arranged by my daughter. (Never get motivated musicians the "Sibelius" scoring software, it's like crack...)
She participates actively in 4H, and consistently displays leadership skills within her 4H club and at the county and state fairs.
She can navigate an ocean-going powerboat, plotting courses and standing watch. She operated the vessel a couple of years ago for about an hour while the Coast Guard was boarding and inspecting us, as I was occupied with them, and they didn't complain once about her seawomanship.
She has several paying jobs, most of which involve interacting with real adults in real social situations.
She has organized a 4H riflery program, including recruiting kids from the local high school, and negotiating access to our local range. She routinely beats adults at competitive shooting events. She also fences historical saber and singlestick about an hour a day. This year we have moved into rapier and buckler, and rapier and knife as well.
She does quite a bit of community volunteer work each week: cooking and serving at the local senior center, caring for animals at the animal shelter, tutoring younger kids, fundraising for local groups, etc. etc.
She manages her own investment portfolio with her college fund, with some advice from me. She steals my Forbes and Economist magazines out of the mailbox before I get a chance to even see them. She can read and understand financial statements, and budgets, and all sorts of spreadsheety-goodness.
She can ride a horse, locate edible forage foods in our local ecosystem, change a tire, use basic hand tools, fell a tree, split firewood, make a fire with flint-and-steel or a bow-drill, build shelters out of found materials in the woods here, fish, hunt, paddle a kayak or canoe, make wine and cheese, cook the classic sauces from scratch, ...
Etc.
I don't think we've been raising her to be a quiet mouse, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Lara Croft, Tomb Raider, perhaps...
flowerseverywhere
3-10-12, 3:33pm
I would suspect nothing less of a daughter of yours bae, and there are probably others like her. I just have no exposure to them.
I wonder what she'll end up doing with all of her talent and brains.
I wonder what she'll end up doing with all of her talent and brains.
Hopefully having pointed words with Rush Limbaugh and his ilk some day :-)
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-rVGUcWV1sog/T1u8-bhXT3I/AAAAAAAAErQ/Eksf54YbKGo/s720/IMG_0386.JPG
Hey Bae... I ran the sheep barn one year at the fair! Eons ago. I do wonder if you & I have met...
ApatheticNoMore
3-10-12, 4:39pm
A lot of good things can be done with homeschool/unschooling. Hiding one's kids from ooooooh dangerous scary ideas out there .... is pretty darn disturbing reason to be homeschooling.
chanterelle
3-10-12, 5:01pm
Hey Bae... I ran the sheep barn one year at the fair! Eons ago. I do wonder if you & I have met...
How many eons was that?!? If it was '74 thru '78 then we must have met!! This spinner/weaver never passed up a sheep barn it it could be helped!
i would love to homeschool DS.
but, we realized that we simply couldn't appropriately manage it. His social needs are much higher than ours, and so we were getting completely burned out just trying to get to enough group settings for him.
kindy provides us an opportunity for our normal quiet need, while meeting his social need.
if he'd been so quiet a kid as DH and I, then it would have been easy.
but, he's just a kid who loves to be around people. We balance it with plenty of quiet home time, but yeah. . .
Hopefully having pointed words with Rush Limbaugh and his ilk some day :-)
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-rVGUcWV1sog/T1u8-bhXT3I/AAAAAAAAErQ/Eksf54YbKGo/s720/IMG_0386.JPG
More power to her!
I used to fence when I was her age. Lots of fun and great exercise.
Hopefully having pointed words with Rush Limbaugh and his ilk some day :-)
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-rVGUcWV1sog/T1u8-bhXT3I/AAAAAAAAErQ/Eksf54YbKGo/s720/IMG_0386.JPG
It sounds like she has quite a bit more to offer the world than Rush does.
How many eons was that?!? If it was '74 thru '78 then we must have met!! This spinner/weaver never passed up a sheep barn it it could be helped!
1982ish... On San Juan Island. The best county fair ever, still!
loosechickens
3-10-12, 8:55pm
There are homeschoolers who homeschool to give their children a wider education, and those who homeschool to make sure that no suspect information enters. We have friends who have homeschooled and represent the two extremes......
In the family that homeschooled three to allow them a wider education and exposure to more and to instill a genuine love of learning, one kid works in the Ecuadorian jungle with Achuar Indians, one is a professor of French literature at a university and the third is a master brewer and expert on mushrooms, his two passions that he has managed to make a living from pursuing. The other family homeschooled five, very fundamentalist (the ones in the long calico dresses, etc., who were fed a careful fundamentalist curriculum that emphasized creationism, etc.), and the three oldest girls are now all married in their early twenties, one in a shotgun wedding at 17, the other two, including one boy are still at home. The boy is quite handy, good with livestock, gardening, a chimney cleaning business, etc., but all five have very limited horizons for their lives, which is sad.
So....one size does not fit all.....I think your daughter, bae, sounds like a wonderful young woman, and much enriched from exposure to far more than she would have been likely to have been exposed to had she attended school full time. Much like our first friends' kids.
The ones who are homeschooled to be sure that no "polluting" ideas, or information that would contradict or question religious views, not so sure about that one. The kids are wonderful kids, kind, good, friendly, etc., but not very well prepared to live in any world but the very narrow one of church, home and others who think the same way. Not so sure that is good........
i think it's fine, actually.
i know many families like this -- the amish come to mind. but, they have 'safety valves' such as that rebellion time put right into their culture so that a person can make a free choice. most of them continue to be amish.
i can't fault people for wanting to share those values with their kids and raise them in the way that they think is "right." For them, those narrow options are the right options, the healthiest options -- and it may be true from their POV.
their community, their sense of identity, their simplicity, their kindness -- sounds to me like it's a good life overall.
We debated homeschooling my DSS when we got custody, as she was going into 7th grade, because she was getting out of a bad domestic violence household, and all the middle schools in Seattle with any room in them had metal detectors, police guards & gangs. She was depressed, and we feared for her mental health. Instead of homeschooling, we took a second mortgage & put her into a private girls middle school. It was a fantastic decision under the circumstances.
it's really always about weighing multiple factors. :)
i think it's fine, actually.
i know many families like this -- the amish come to mind. but, they have 'safety valves' such as that rebellion time put right into their culture so that a person can make a free choice. most of them continue to be amish.
i can't fault people for wanting to share those values with their kids and raise them in the way that they think is "right." For them, those narrow options are the right options, the healthiest options -- and it may be true from their POV.
their community, their sense of identity, their simplicity, their kindness -- sounds to me like it's a good life overall.
The Amish choose to remain Amish for the most part because they don't have the education, experience or even the basic skills to function in a modern world. Teenagers turned loose on this 'foreign' world is like asking a 3rd grader to navigate high school successfully. The 3rd grader, or the Amish teens, will be scared, overwhelmed, and after the first rush of excitement, ready to 'go home'. I see the Amish as a curiosity, but a repressive society. They are extremely rigid and very harsh to those who DO choose to reject that life, another pressure point to staying in the flock. These people definitely DON'T want their kids to find themselves or their own way. Rumspringa is a farce as a way for the kids to choose. It's more a calculated way to scare the sh*t out of some impressionable teens to keep them close and in the flock.
I know a lot of people like to romanticize the Amish, but on closer inspection, what we romanticize is the simplicity of life and quaint wood stoves/oil lamps/horse and buggy. That's just the window dressing, and truthfully, something any of us could have. The rigidity of the 'reasons' is not so romantic. Looks good from the outside, but if you are a teen who loves music, or art, or travel, or yoga or just about anything outside of the narrow life focus of this group, well, you're pretty much screwed.
poetry_writer
3-11-12, 2:59pm
http://0.tqn.com/d/pregnancy/1/7/m/d/3/0812price.jpg
12 weeks.
I like the sound of your Renaissance daughter, Bae. Keep up the good work!
http://0.tqn.com/d/pregnancy/1/7/m/d/3/0812price.jpg
12 weeks.
"Twelve weeks into your pregnancy, or 10 weeks after conception, your baby is developing fingernails. Your baby's face now has a human profile. By now your baby might be about 2 1/2 inches (61 millimeters) long from crown to rump and weigh about 1/2 ounce (14 grams)."
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112/NSECTIONGROUP=2
I had an ultrasound at 9 weeks, and I miscarried. It looked almost human, and was also a blighted fetus. Live birth is amazing! It never ceased to amaze me when I was farming and having to pull stuck lambs. Watching a calf be born breech was awe inspiring. Whenever there were spontaneous abortions, I realized how important full gestation in live birth animals such as we are.
wow, peggy, that was really condescending.
you assume that the amish are fully unenlightened as a community, unaware of or without any access to modernity. that is really condescending and a deep misunderstanding of the amish.
second, you assume that i am "romanticizing" the amish (or any insular community) with no awareness of my understanding of or experience with this community.
to characterize the amish participating in rumspringa as "unleashing a 3rd grader into the modern world" is grossly inaccurate.
90% of amish youth (source (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/januaryweb-only/1-19-31.0.html?start=3)) between ages 16 and 27 spend time in their community's 'youth groups' that allow them to experiment with aspects of modernity, seek educational opportunities (usually in trade schools) as well as work within their communities. Most of these young people continue to live at home, work within their family's businesses, and still have a lot of fun as young people exploring the modern world from the safety of their community.
These youth groups can be small or large, with most of them sitting between 75 and 125 young people at any given time. Some will be more conservative and spend more time doing "churchy" things, while others will be more rambunctious and go so far as to own cars, travel to cities, have computers, cell phones, and other technologies, watch television, listen to a variety of music, and go to movies.
Typically, by the time a young person is 27 (and usually before), they are encouraged to make a choice to join the church or 'drift away' entirely and may be shunned (they may also not be shunned, though it is still worthwhile to recognize that the young people are still considered very separate from the rest of the community).
I also have found in my own experience with amish families -- such as being in a buying group from one of the farms that was within about 45 minutes drive of our place -- that the children are quite savvy and very capable at very young ages, girls included. Part of it is the life of work, the skills that they learn outside of their education -- which in pennsylvania must continue up to age 13 and meet the curricula standards of the state up until 8th grade.
I met several young amish women who had decided to become nurses and then ultimately midwives for their communities, who are also still active in their midwifery community that is not amish (professional organizations). These young women are as educated and capable as their peers -- and as enlightened and intelligent. And, their skill is invaluable.
Likewise, I knew a family of builders -- all amish -- whose young men knew several trades each in relation to building. They built "english" homes and could even do the electrical fitting, the HVAC, and other elements that they -- themselves -- do not use. Most of the young men, during their rumspringa time (or youth) went to trade schools in addition to apprenticing within their communities.
Most of the amish people whom I'd met over the decade of being in PA and meeting many different families (through different ways) showed a very quiet and closed community of people who were very intelligent, vibrant, and enlightened. They were widely read and had very clear sense of business, farming, trades, and the politics involved with all of this (laws, regulations, and so on) -- and they also went and spoke at various governmental meetings that would impact their ability to work and trade according to their values and needs.
Are there also problems in the amish community? Yes, there are problems with in it.
There are several different kinds of problems -- everything from abuse in families, hiding of people with disabilities, and genetic health problems that are as yet to be solved (though there are several 'english' doctors who are working on that specifically -- one of them formerly amish himself, but desiring to go to medical school, he did, and simply "missed the time" that he could become amish. in deciding to stick with modern medicine as a profession -- he simply 'drifted away' from the amish community. And yet, not fully shunned, he is their go-to physician for his community, and he's managed to find a treatment for three common genetic diseases -- I'll look for the source, it was a local newspaper article in the Lancaster New Era newspaper from about 5-6 years ago).
I would also venture out and say that I know many families of traditional, "weird" christian groups. I am very curious about people and their lifestyles.
I grew up with a family that was "Free Will Baptist." They had very strict lifestyles and a very insular community. The family that I knew had three girls and a boy. The three girls became nurses, and the boy became a welder. They are all married, have children, and are doing well. Their community allows computers (so i found them on FB), but doesn't allow tv, movies, or non-church music. They still live near their parents, still go to the same church, still follow the same dress codes.
They were not home schooled -- they went to the church's school (which is much the same in a lot of ways). They were normal, fun kids -- as far as I could tell -- and I enjoyed their company. I often went to church events with them, over to their church-friends homes, and even camping with them one week. While I never particularly bought into their religious views, they always seemed like nice, normal people to me. Several of their church friends were home schooled, but their mother worked to bring in more income. Dad was a mechanic, mom worked as a secretary.
I knew several other families of various religions -- mostly modern folks of various indian religions, muslim families, jewish families, and several kinds of christian families.
I have always been curious about groups and communities that "close in" or hold people close. I get concerned about cults, of course, but I seem to feel a difference between these more isolated/insulated communities and cults (usually in that they are not dealing with a hierarchical structure, that each family has it's own agency and sovereignty, and that individuals can walk away, even though it may be difficult).
I grew up for many years in Amish country. The Amish helped take care of my grandfather, their neighbor, when he was in his 90s. I still drop by and visit with some of them when I'm back in the area. We don't Skype much.
So what I'll say about Peggy's usual gemmummelt is sis mer iwwel.
First of all, what the hell are you talking about bae?!! If you weren't so intent on impressing everyone with your dazzling command of foreign language (and dead language) and actually trying to communicate an idea, perhaps folks would be a bit more impressed! I'm mumbling...What?
I don't think I'm being harsh on the Amish. this is the life they choose, fine. There is no requirement to admire it. I don't, obviously. I'm not talking about the quaint window dressing we all see, but the realities of the life. We can all admire simple living and buggies and oil lamps and farming. I do. But I admire it as a CHOICE, and not as some edict from god. Or rather the leading elder of the order, who has surprising latitude to enforce his interpretation of the 'rules'.
8th grade, despite some people's thought, does not prepare you for the realities of modern life. Sure, it prepares you to wait on tables, or scrub toilets, but not much else. These people don't just have a comfortable relationship with computers or technology, and although you say you know those who do, we know that isn't the norm. It just isn't. That's their whole thing, remember? Being shunned by your community, and even your parents is a very big pressure on young people. People do what they know, largely, in this closed community as well as the greater modern community. It's a whole lot easier to just go with the flow rather than seek further education, without family support, separate yourself from the community you grew up with knowing this community now say you as a traitor, and cast yourself into an unknown, unfamiliar world.
They can certainly choose this, that's their right. It's also my right to say I think it's a rather non-productive community at the very least, and terribly regressive at the most.
So, if a kid wants to be a yoga instructor? How would they fare there? Do you think they could stay in their community and do this? I don't think so. What about being an artist? or a Musician? Or a scientist? And what if this kid was a woman? This community has a fairly narrow focus on approved careers. And if you want something different? Sorry. You have to choose between your parents, friends, and community and the thing that floats your boat. I don't think I'm being condescending. Anyone who has lived an extremely sheltered life would be overwhelmed by modern American life. We have fundamentalist who won't let their kids go to public school because they fear the messages and ideas 'out there', but these people still have TVs and magazines and presumably function in the modern world. Take even those modern things away and you have a pretty sheltered person, innocent and ignorant of modern ways. Mind you, that doesn't equal to stupid, it just means what it says, ignorant of the ways.
Do you think Amish sit around the table talking politics? Or modern music, movies, the art museum, fencing, world languages, science, world politics, advances in medicine, business, or a zillion other things we talk about and take for granted everyone knows even a little about.
Michael Jackson. You probably don't listen to him, or even admire his music, but you know who he is. And if someone makes a reference to him, in what ever context, you probably get it. That's a cultural reference. And there are a million of those we don't even think about that color our everyday lives. And someone like bae might as well be a space alien with his constant 'impressive' use of Latin and obscure historical references (and not so obscure) How many Amish do you think have read 1984? or Animal farm? of Atlas Shrugged? Or Catcher in the Rye?
This is what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to demonize them, but I'm also not romanticizing them either. They are what they are. A fairly closed, strict religious sect, quaint buggies aside.
http://0.tqn.com/d/pregnancy/1/7/m/d/3/0812price.jpg
12 weeks.
As my dear husband likes to say, "you can stick a candle in a cow patty, but that don't make it a birthday cake"
I'm fairly certain an ape baby at 12 weeks looks a lot like this.
As my dear husband likes to say, "you can stick a candle in a cow patty, but that don't make it a birthday cake"
I WILL be stealing this phrase! Thanks...
peggy,
wow, just, wow.
ok, where to begin.
in order to be educated and capable, one doesn't require a formal education.
The reality is that just because the education isn't formal after a certain point doesn't mean that learning (and living) stops. It just means that it's channelled in directions that the community feels is valuable.
I have pointed out where young women are becoming nurse-midwives, where young men are out learning trades, and this means that many are seeking education beyond high school. How could they possibly qualify for these programs if they weren't capable because they had nothing greater than an 8th grade education?
The reality is, they do have an education. it doesn't look like a typical high school education, but they are literate, capable, and hard working. There's no reason why they shouldn't be accepted, so long as they can fulfill the prerequisites to get in and then finish the coursework satisfactorily to get their degrees.
And, many of them do go on to college. Here (http://www.mennoweekly.org/2009/9/14/life-after-leaving-amish-leads-goshen-college/?page=3) is an article about one girl and her sister who attend college near their amish family.
There is a lot that is relevant in that article-- one think that strikes me though is that this girl -- with only an 8th grade education -- learned email in one try. Because, guess what? It's not that hard. And, she has close connections to her family, and wants to become a midwife. She probably is managing to use a computer every day -- because she's smart and capable.
This is not to say that it is easy for young people who choose not to become amish. 5-20% of amish youth choose not to. And yes, some are shunned. But, from what I can tell from my reading (online, since I was looking for articles to demonstrate my own experience), the ex-amish population is very supportive in providing for these amish youth looking to find their way and many still maintain connections to their amish communities.
Finally, you state that you do not believe that the amish talk about politics at the dinner table. This always depends upon the family. I know many non-amish families who do not talk about politics at the dinner table. That being said, I do know that many amish are very much involved in politics and political life, as a means of protecting and preserving their way of life.
For example, any laws related to the dairy industry and the production of raw milk would be of great interest to the farm where we would go for/with our buyers club. we were seeking them out for raw milk, and the regulations are strict. any political action they can do in that regard, they will -- to protect their way of life and their livelihood.
On the flip side, there are also concessions to modernity. Pastuerization and refrigeration of dairy before it goes to market is important (if you are doing that instead of the regulations for raw dairy). This means that many amish actually have some pretty hefty mechanical equipment -- modern equipment -- in their dairies.
And this is relevant because -- while we often think of them as shunning everything for their quaint buggies -- they also are subject to many health and safety regulations as their part of the food supply. Their religious exemption doesn't work.
What is interesting is that the dairies that dealt in pasteurized dairy around the stoltzfous farm (one of many) where we got our raw dairy, formed an independent company that owned and maintained those items, and not being a "person," it technically didn't break the religious rules for people using mechanized equipment.
But, whenever those laws and regulations are up for question or change, the amish community is quite up-front about and in the political process, discussing the benefits and drawbacks of different elements of a given regulation in relation not only to their work, but also to their way of life.
and fwiw, when i was out and about in and around lancaster county, i saw many amish people (and families) at the public library checking out all manner of books, communicating with people in the broader community, and even taking course work that might be interesting to them. my MIL takes a 'tatting' class (a form of lace making, i think) with several amish women and girls, who apparently are quite good at it and want to use the technique in some of the handicrafts that they make and sell in their family's shop in the primary amish-related tourist district. my MIL says that they are really vibrant, and that they really didn't' 'get" Eat Pay Love, though they all ready it because the title was so nice.
They didn't understand why she left her husband and why she didn't want children, but they thought she had a fun adventure.
So you can go right on thinking that these are backwards people and you are not being disparaging. And, you can go on thinking that I'm romanticizing people whom I actually knew and talked to for years.
But that doesn't make it so.
red fox,
yes, gestation is everything. viability is wrapped up in it. and from there, legal personhood, really.
Finally, you state that you do not believe that the amish talk about politics at the dinner table.
I've eaten hundreds of meals at Amish dinner tables. I suspect Peggy has eaten...none.
Yet she somehow knows what they talk about...
I consulted with an Amish friend of mine just last week about some sustainable agriculture legislation we are working on here. He knew more than most of our highly-paid consultants....
poetry_writer
3-12-12, 8:40am
As my dear husband likes to say, "you can stick a candle in a cow patty, but that don't make it a birthday cake"
I'm fairly certain an ape baby at 12 weeks looks a lot like this.
Could you post a picture of an ape baby ultrasound? Are you saying babies are on the same level as an ape? Not sure of your point.
Zoe, please re-read my post. I never said they were ignorant, or stupid, or illiterate. What I said was, they are a closed society with fairly strict rules, and IF a kid wanted to pursue art or dance or music, or science, or electrician or nuclear engineer, or travel, or yoga instruction, or a zillion other career paths, they had to basically leave their community and seek it elsewhere. And even though I haven't sat at 'hundreds' of Amish dinner tables, I'm pretty sure their parents aren't encouraging them to pursue these other careers. I'm pretty sure farming and related skills, equipment repair, animal husbandry, etc...are the approved careers. I'll bet fashion design isn't one of them.
I never said they don't set aside their 'rules' to make items for the tourist, but that is a reality of the modern world they had to adjust to. Same with hay balers and such. (Pulled by horses) These are necessary evils they had to incorporate to survive. And I'm sure they know what regulations they need to follow in order to sell their product. Again, I never said I thought they were stupid.
Despite your related stories, I know Amish aren't regularly using computers, going to college, traveling anywhere, watching movies, and integrating their community in the big wide world. I didn't say they live in a cave, I just said they live outside the normal society. And no, the young aren't prepared to live outside that society, which would account for such a small number leaving. When you have to go by horse and buggy you can't get very far from home. And when the modern world, i.e. the world in which their community is located, expects you to at least have a 12th grade education, or beyond, then no, you aren't prepared to live in that world. You said oh but they do continue their education in things beneficial to their community. Well duh! But there really isn't a lot of call for buggy repair in the modern world. OK, that's exaggeration, to a point. Sure, the girls are all taught the good homemaking skills, and I'm pretty sure each community has at least one midwife. That has been true for most communities worldwide since ancient times. These are needed skills in that community. But how many of those girls are encouraged to fence, or target shoot, for instance, or get involved in politics, or fashion design, or evolutionary biology, or anything a smart girl might find an interest in? How many girls do you think are even encouraged to pursue buggy repair, or engine repair (for the hay baler). I'm guessing zero. This is what I mean by a repressive society.
I don't know why you all are getting so upset because I don't happen to admire a closed religious sect that shuns the modern world that is all around them. They just seem stuck in time. Quaint, sure, but not something I admire. What the english see is not the everyday lives, which they keep very private. I never condemned them, just said I don't admire them. And i feel sorry for any kid in that society who yearns to pursue anything other than the narrow list of approved career choices. Not much choice there.
Could you post a picture of an ape baby ultrasound? Are you saying babies are on the same level as an ape? Not sure of your point.
Not really sure of your point in posting the picture. I'm assuming since this thread is about government intrusion in mandating an unnecessary medical procedure before a woman can seek a legal procedure of abortion, you posted the picture as your 'proof' that we are killing babies. And so I remarked that a picture of a fetus doesn't prove anything. A picture doesn't prove viability.
http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images-index.php As you can see, embryos at the stage when most are aborted don't really resemble 'humans' if we are going by pictures to judge.
It was surprisingly hard to find ape embryo ultrasounds. Maybe because they don't seem to give signs of being pregnant until fairly close to delivery, I don't know. There were lots of pictures of ultrasounds of ape hearts and other internal organs on vet websites. I did find one embryo picture but then lost it and couldn't find it again. It did look remarkably like your photo, but with a tail. (we too have 'tails' in the beginning)
On the topic of intrusive government programs, are the Amish exempt from Obamacare? I thought at least some branches proscribed insurance, as well as most medical technologies.
The fiction that if we just knew what fetuses looked like, we'd all assume a pro-forced birth stance is apparently behind these intrusive, paternalistic laws. And anyone who thinks being a frankly unwanted child is less painful than an early-term abortion isn't applying logic, IMO.
The fiction that if we just knew what fetuses looked like, we'd all assume a pro-forced birth stance is apparently behind these intrusive, paternalistic laws. And anyone who thinks being a frankly unwanted child is less painful than an early-term abortion isn't applying logic, IMO.
+1
ApatheticNoMore
3-12-12, 1:19pm
I have no trouble believing where you are getting at in general Peggy, it is afterall some people's reported experience just growing up in small towns, the insularity etc.. I really think it is common knowledge that community and culture especially small scale and tight knit, and not just government, can be repressive (although little is as brutal as government is when it turns totalitarian).
Heck most people probably experience this to some degree just in their families. There are approved and unapproved paths (and this goes far beyond simple morals) and THAT'S JUST THAT (after all how many parents would say: music, art, dance, yoga, travel - how are you going to make a living? how about getting a business degree? .... and that's the mild form).
But .... I don't actually know that much about the Amish in particular. I think the decision to stop at a certain level of technology has some wisdom (heck anti-civ types would take us back much further than that - for anti-civs: what is the fate of women in a society with no technology when it seems so many used to die in childbirth?).
The Amish in general don't "stop at some level in technology". They aren't trying to live in some past world.
They do however adopt new technology very mindfully, after evaluating how the technology will influence their culture and their land. I've known Amish farmers engaged in decades-long research projects to see how various tools and methods play out over time.
There could be something important for the rest of us to learn from this. If more of us took the time to sit down to dinner with our Amish neighbors, instead of caricaturing them....
flowerseverywhere
3-12-12, 2:25pm
Wednesday I leave for a long weekend in Lancaster Pa. There is a big quilt show that I have been attending every year for 20 years. We generally stay in Bird-in-Hand and Intercourse.
This of course is in the middle of a very commercial area of Amish farms. The first years we went there were gas lamps in the fabric stores and the streets rolled up at 5 pm except for a few restaurants. One of the first years we were at a fabric store and they had a stack of quilts on a bed. They would turn them back for customers to see and the owner of the store only had one helper and happened to mention that they had to wait for help to get them back right on the bed. We volunteered to help and spent an hour helping a young girl turn quilts and move quilts as many had been sold and they invited us to share lunch with them in the back of the store. More like a back porch. These were older women and they had a system. Some liked to piece the quilts, some liked to quilt and the more gregarious and least shy worked in the store. It was a wonderful experience for us. There were no men as they were in the fields plowing and were going to another farm for lunch as they bought the equipment with them to help. They shared equipment. They had no phone in the house, but even back then there was a phone in the garage. My mother in law had quite a conversation with one of the women as they shared a love of weaving and both had grandchildren and she would go there several times a year and always stop and chat with her.
Fast forward and over these twenty years we have seen gas lamps in the stores give way to electric lights, yet the young women still work there. Many of the farms have struggled to stay solvent so they often sell to the public.
I do think they are very aware of politics since many laws apply to them as well- I have seen many an Amish man sitting reading the paper. The kids go to schoolhouses on scooters and by walking, carrying their lunch pails. Like any farm area, the school year is somewhat dictated by crops going in and coming out, and selling and putting food up.
It makes me sad to see this area north of Lancaster so commercial now, but south of Lancaster there is little commercialization. Believe me, you don't want to get stuck in the backroads in the dark unless you know where you are going as there is not a light for miles. The stores are open later, even till Midnight Friday night, and the stores have websites. But everything that can close will do so on Sunday. I would personally like to see that happen here- our lives are too hectic and a family day for everyone that can would be great I think.
Now we have Amish and Mennonites flocking to the East of Lake Ontario because land is cheap, and there is also a newer community in Southern NY and there have been a few problems as some of their ways are foreign and like any small town, there are lots of people doing things they way they always have with people they have always known.
If I have to say one thing about the Amish is that they take care of their own. If a barn burns down, they are all there raising a new one. They share tools and skills. If a person gets too old they find something for them to do. There is a fabric store we have gone to for all these years and the once robust female who ran the place had a stroke and she still is at the store, talking to customers from a stool. Through the years many of the young women we encountered were less shy than the local home schooled Christian girls I have run across who seem to me to be more isolated. They seemed to be more confident and less scared.
We could greatly benefit by adopting some of their ways. Of course, my observations are just that, observations based on my limited view of my tiny slice of the world.
Gingerella72
3-12-12, 2:30pm
If those of a liberal political bent are failing to even replace their numbers and those of a more conservative political bent are increasing in numbers and many of them are not being indoctrinated in the public school system, what implications do you think this will have over the next 30 to 40 years in the social and political spheres?
Hopefully some of them will see the light and leave the cult. It is possible....see the No Longer Quivering website for testimonials.
http://nolongerquivering.com/
Wednesday I leave for a long weekend in Lancaster Pa. There is a big quilt show that I have been attending every year for 20 years. We generally stay in Bird-in-Hand and Intercourse.
This of course is in the middle of a very commercial area of Amish farms. The first years we went there were gas lamps in the fabric stores and the streets rolled up at 5 pm except for a few restaurants. One of the first years we were at a fabric store and they had a stack of quilts on a bed. They would turn them back for customers to see and the owner of the store only had one helper and happened to mention that they had to wait for help to get them back right on the bed. We volunteered to help and spent an hour helping a young girl turn quilts and move quilts as many had been sold and they invited us to share lunch with them in the back of the store. More like a back porch. These were older women and they had a system. Some liked to piece the quilts, some liked to quilt and the more gregarious and least shy worked in the store. It was a wonderful experience for us. There were no men as they were in the fields plowing and were going to another farm for lunch as they bought the equipment with them to help. They shared equipment. They had no phone in the house, but even back then there was a phone in the garage. My mother in law had quite a conversation with one of the women as they shared a love of weaving and both had grandchildren and she would go there several times a year and always stop and chat with her.
Fast forward and over these twenty years we have seen gas lamps in the stores give way to electric lights, yet the young women still work there. Many of the farms have struggled to stay solvent so they often sell to the public.
I do think they are very aware of politics since many laws apply to them as well- I have seen many an Amish man sitting reading the paper. The kids go to schoolhouses on scooters and by walking, carrying their lunch pails. Like any farm area, the school year is somewhat dictated by crops going in and coming out, and selling and putting food up.
It makes me sad to see this area north of Lancaster so commercial now, but south of Lancaster there is little commercialization. Believe me, you don't want to get stuck in the back roads in the dark unless you know where you are going as there is not a light for miles. The stores are open later, even till Midnight Friday night, and the stores have websites. But everything that can close will do so on Sunday. I would personally like to see that happen here- our lives are too hectic and a family day for everyone that can would be great I think.
Now we have Amish and Mennonites flocking to the East of Lake Ontario because land is cheap, and there is also a newer community in Southern NY and there have been a few problems as some of their ways are foreign and like any small town, there are lots of people doing things they way they always have with people they have always known.
If I have to say one thing about the Amish is that they take care of their own. If a barn burns down, they are all there raising a new one. They share tools and skills. If a person gets too old they find something for them to do. There is a fabric store we have gone to for all these years and the once robust female who ran the place had a stroke and she still is at the store, talking to customers from a stool. Through the years many of the young women we encountered were less shy than the local home schooled Christian girls I have run across who seem to me to be more isolated. They seemed to be more confident and less scared.
We could greatly benefit by adopting some of their ways. Of course, my observations are just that, observations based on my limited view of my tiny slice of the world.
Yes yes, they quilt and sew and eat lunch and read the newspaper....>8)
I never said I thought they were worms or idiots, or muzzled. You think I'm surprised they TALKED to you? (here's my surprised face :0!) You all are sure reading a lot into my posts that isn't there.
ANM got it. I was talking about repressive societies. Not just individual families but as a culture. And yes, some towns are like that except if you decide to go off and become a nuclear scientist I'm pretty sure those towns will let you move back and live with them and belong to their church. Not so with the Amish. If you reject the religion/lifestyle, you're lost. Have you ever heard of anyone 'becoming Amish'? Probably not. That is a closed society. You are born into it and once you're out, you're out. No getting back in. There are some fundamentalist churches/groups who are quite repressive, but even there if you choose to be an evolutionary scientist, they will eventually come around and welcome you into their flock, although they will continue to try to show you the evil of your ways. ;)
Of course they are friendly to english. They want you to buy their products after all, they are business people. But don't think you are privy to their inner lives. You can not be, ever.
These are my observations too, which apparently are WRONG and I'm not allowed to have. So, go ahead and tell me how they eat REAL food, and can count past 100 and put their pants on one leg at a time. But if you re-read my posts you'll see that's not why I don't admire them.
sheesh! I guess it's a faux pas to say I don't admire the Amish. Kind of a requirement for the SL crowd. PC even!
*I also evaluate each new technology very carefully, as I think most on here do, but I also value sending my daughter to school beyond the 8th grade. And even if my kids pursued a career I didn't think was great, I certainly wouldn't shun them or tell them they can never rejoin my society/church. Or marry the good little Amish girl down the road. Another hallmark of a repressive society. You can't marry out of the faith.
I am *reading* your post. You expect me to "read into" your post that you MEANT that you felt these children (poor kids!) were sadly not being encourage to "pursue their dreams!" beyond what their community values or they would be shunned!
But here is what you WROTE:
I'm not talking about the quaint window dressing we all see, but the realities of the life. We can all admire simple living and buggies and oil lamps and farming. I do. But I admire it as a CHOICE, and not as some edict from god. Or rather the leading elder of the order, who has surprising latitude to enforce his interpretation of the 'rules'.
It's not a choice.
8th grade, despite some people's thought, does not prepare you for the realities of modern life. Sure, it prepares you to wait on tables, or scrub toilets, but not much else.
Really, I'm reading into this?
These people don't just have a comfortable relationship with computers or technology, and although you say you know those who do, we know that isn't the norm.
"we" do? evidence?
Oh, wait, here is your evidence:
It just isn't. That's their whole thing, remember?
Obviously, you are very ignorant of the amish. Do I know about the amish? DO i remember? Yes. What about you?
Being shunned by your community, and even your parents is a very big pressure on young people. People do what they know, largely, in this closed community as well as the greater modern community. It's a whole lot easier to just go with the flow rather than seek further education, without family support, separate yourself from the community you grew up with knowing this community now say you as a traitor, and cast yourself into an unknown, unfamiliar world.
Yes, and obviously this is not a problem of just the amish, as you write. If this was your whole point, why make all of the other ignorant, condescending statements that you made?
They can certainly choose this, that's their right. It's also my right to say I think it's a rather non-productive community at the very least, and terribly regressive at the most.
Yes, That's right. I'm reading into your opinion that you find these people "non productive and backwards."
So, if a kid wants to be a yoga instructor? How would they fare there? Do you think they could stay in their community and do this? I don't think so. What about being an artist? or a Musician? Or a scientist? And what if this kid was a woman? This community has a fairly narrow focus on approved careers. And if you want something different? Sorry. You have to choose between your parents, friends, and community and the thing that floats your boat.
As evidenced, a kid can choose to leave, and they may not be fully shunned by their community. I've given several examples.
I don't think I'm being condescending. Anyone who has lived an extremely sheltered life would be overwhelmed by modern American life.
Culture shock is not a terminal disease. Culture shock can be overcome, and in most instances, is. And even if it is overcome, often people choose to go back to their original culture/environment anyway. It is, perhaps, a more educated choice.
We have fundamentalist who won't let their kids go to public school because they fear the messages and ideas 'out there', but these people still have TVs and magazines and presumably function in the modern world. Take even those modern things away and you have a pretty sheltered person, innocent and ignorant of modern ways. Mind you, that doesn't equal to stupid, it just means what it says, ignorant of the ways.
Right, and ignorance can be overcome.
Do you think Amish sit around the table talking politics?
Yes.
Or modern music, movies, the art museum, fencing, world languages, science, world politics, advances in medicine, business, or a zillion other things we talk about and take for granted everyone knows even a little about.
Yes, to many of these things (not music or movies, but pretty much the rest of it).
Michael Jackson. You probably don't listen to him, or even admire his music, but you know who he is. And if someone makes a reference to him, in what ever context, you probably get it. That's a cultural reference.
Right, without knowing all the cultural references of another culture, all is lost. I live in NZ. I don't get 90% of cultural references here. Seriously.
Poor me, so backwards and unproductive and not able to make a choice about how to live!
And there are a million of those we don't even think about that color our everyday lives. . . . How many Amish do you think have read 1984? or Animal farm? of Atlas Shrugged? Or Catcher in the Rye?
Right, because without these things, we just can't have a good life in the modern world, or have a real choice in regards to deciding not to continue in modern life or their own traditions.
This is what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to demonize them, but I'm also not romanticizing them either. They are what they are. A fairly closed, strict religious sect, quaint buggies aside.
So, this is what you are talking about?
That these people are ignorant, non-productive, and backward and incapable of making it in the modern world, and because of that, incapable of having a choice in regards to whether or not to continue in the modern world or be amish?
Demonized view? no.
Ignorant and condescending? yes.
For whatever it is worth, I greatly dislike the intellectual dishonesty of not owning the statements that you make, and then blaming the reader for "not understanding what you meant."
It is easy enough to communicate clearly. You have editing options on this forum, even.
I found many of the statements condescending to me personally, because it was asserting that I don't know what I know. That I don't know amish people, or that I don't know about their lives, and that I haven't studied them in academic context even (which I have). That is condescending.
Secondarily, I found many of the statements absolutely ignorant about the amish and disparaging of them in the process. Honestly, to call them -- repeatedly -- ignorant and backwards, and then assert that you did not mean/say those things?
I honestly don't know how to respond to that. Other than with shock, and a clear quoted post -- quoting back your own statements to you.
If you would like, you can substitute the term "peggy" and "peggy's community" for every statement, and see whether it holds up. See whether you would feel disparaged by it.
"Peggy is non productive, ignorant, and backwards, only capable of washing toilets, entirely overwhelmed by a culture that she has never experienced such that any choice she might make to return to her own culture is not really a choice."
Yeah, it's disparaging, isn't it?
no , it's not because it doesn't make any sense. I never once called them ignorant and backwards, which by the way isn't the same thing. A person can be ignorant of many things but not be backwards.
So, you assert that the Amish are just like us except they drive buggies. Just as educated, just as worldly, just as prepared to exist in a 21st century world. They are scientist, and doctors, and lawyers, and electricians, and librarians, and college professors, and authors, and artist and musicians, and yoga instructors, and world travelers, and chefs, taxi drivers and airplane pilots, and and and....so, why exactly do they shun cars? Why do they not have electricity? Or modern pluming? Or encourage their kids to pursue their dreams? And why is it so important to you I admire these people? I don't denigrate these people, I just don't admire them. That's not condescending. That's just looking at it in a realist way. The other side of not admiring them is not disgust or hatred. It's ambivalent, at best. I just refuse to romanticize them.
Maybe you think it's quaint that their kids have very little choice in their futures. It's their kids after all, and they do look sooo cute in those pictures of them peeking out the back of the buggy. I just take a different look and see young girls, about bae's daughters age, who couldn't even dream of doing 90% of the things bae's daughter gets to do and enjoys. And it's BECAUSE I respect those little girls that I say I feel sorry for them in that they won't be able to have those advantages of culture, education, experience that bae's daughter has. Simplicity, as a choice, is fantastic, and freeing for those who choose it freely. Being forced to choose between your family and community and those experiences bae's daughter enjoys at the encouragement of her family is not choice, really. How many people choose to turn their backs on their family and community. Not many.
You see that as condescending. It's not, but apparently you think so. I see it as lack of opportunity for these bright young people. This is what I've said before. You just refuse to read it.
So, if they leave they might not be FULLY shunned by their families? Maybe just a little shunned? Do you read what you write? Would you want to be ANY shunned by your family? How is that not incredible pressure on these young people?
I think it's you who has an unrealistic view of this society.
http://www.amish.net/faq.asp
Answer: The Amish children do not attend formal schooling past the eighth grade. Amish parents provide training from an early age through young adults, teaching them the skills necessary to be farmers, or other skills, i.e., carpenters and parents. This training prepares them much better for their life as an Amish adult than what they would receive in formal schooling. The issue of compulsory school attendance until age 16 was decided as the result of the arrest and conviction by Greene County, Wisconsin, authorities, of three fathers (two Amish and one Mennonite). The United States Supreme Court in the case of Wisconsin vs. Yoder ruled in l972 that it was unconstitutional to force the Amish into high school. You will find excellent information on the subject of Amish schooling and the Supreme Court Decision at the website of the group who defended the Amish, The National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom, headed by the Rev. William C. Lindholm, Chairman.
This is all I'm saying. Quit reading more into it than I intend. I never said they were backwards. i just said they live on the edge of this 21st century civilization. I feel sorry for the kids who, I'm sure like most kids, see this exciting world and can't really join it without leaving their families/communities/church.
Admittedly it's probably the religious aspect I don't like. I guess it's really kind of a cult when you think about it. A rather harmless, non threatening cult, but a cult none the less. Now I'm sure you'll find something horrible about me saying that.
Do you think those polygamist Mormons in Texas are a cult? Harmless and to be admired? How are they different than the Amish, besides the obvious more than one wife? Look beyond the cute dresses, which by the way, unless you didn't notice, are exactly the same with small variation in color, no pattern. Do you think they all just happen to share the same style sense or is there something else going on there?
Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. You admire the Amish, that's obvious. Doesn't mean you want to be Amish. I don't, also obvious. Doesn't mean I hate or despise the Amish. It doesn't make one or the other of us right or wrong. It's just two observations on this world of ours.
flowerseverywhere
3-12-12, 10:40pm
Yes yes, they quilt and sew and eat lunch and read the newspaper....>8)
I never said I thought they were worms or idiots, or muzzled. You think I'm surprised they TALKED to you? (here's my surprised face :0!) You all are sure reading a lot into my posts that isn't there.
My post wasn't about you. It was about me and my experiences.
Peggy,
I never asserted that they are "just like us except that they drive buggies." If I did, please quote my statements directly.
Second, you asserted in post 85:
It's also my right to say I think it's a rather non-productive community at the very least, and terribly regressive at the most.
th grade, despite some people's thought, does not prepare you for the realities of modern life. Sure, it prepares you to wait on tables, or scrub toilets, but not much else.
A non-productive, backwards (that's what regressive means) who are only prepared to wait on tables or scrub toilets.
Despite evidence to the contrary.
I never asked you to "admire" them. I found your statements ignorant and condescending towards the amish and towards me and my experience of them. It's not at all important that you 'admire' anyone -- but i certainly expect that people of divergent world views from yours at least be accorded the respect that you feel that you deserve.
For the rest of it, that will have to wait.
But you are only digging for yourself a deeper hole to work your way out of. Perhaps you'll want to read your post and do the edit function?
Can I call a time-out and make the observation that this misunderstanding seems to be escalating? I suspect the medium rather than the message. It's impossible to hear affect and all the other body-cues in communication on these pages.
Peggy,
Yes, it is clear we have a difference of opinion. Of that, I do not care. What I do care about is when you are condescending toward me in the posts, as well as making all manner of false assumptions and accusations, as well as making disparaging remarks regarding the Amish.
You make two statements that you assert is your "point." The first, in post 85 is as follows:
People do what they know, largely, in this closed community as well as the greater modern community. It's a whole lot easier to just go with the flow rather than seek further education, without family support, separate yourself from the community you grew up with knowing this community now say you as a traitor, and cast yourself into an unknown, unfamiliar world.
and in post 115
I just take a different look and see young girls, about bae's daughters age, who couldn't even dream of doing 90% of the things bae's daughter gets to do and enjoys. And it's BECAUSE I respect those little girls that I say I feel sorry for them in that they won't be able to have those advantages of culture, education, experience that bae's daughter has.
With these, I can agree. That is to say, I can agree with the sentiment, and with the criticism of the amish culture in regards to this -- though the second one includes "pity" which I consider condescending.
Nevertheless, these opinions are fine by me.
Everything else -- which you seem to assert as evidence (with the exception of the amish.net information which would constitute as evidence) -- falls into wild claims and misinformation.
Foremost, you asserted that the amish would simply not survive in the 21st century world. Likewise, that they are "shunned" and therefore it's not a real choice.
I provided evidence to the contrary.
First, as much as 20% of the young people choose not to continue to be amish. This is a fairly large retention rate, I grant you. But does this per se demonstrate that they 'do not have a choice?' No.
It is easier to "go with the flow?" Yes, it is. And, the modern world may be overwhelming for many amish youth. And, those reasons may be part of why 80% choose to become amish.
But, because 20% can and do choose to leave, it certainly demonstrates that these people are actively choosing -- one way or the other, and that they have the opportunity to choose.
Likewise, you assert that they are "simply not prepared." You assert that they are not educated enough. I provided (linked) a direct story of a young woman who was in college and preparing to become a nurse and midwife. Obviously, while her formal education ended at age 13, she still had other knowledge, skills, and education on which to build this college degree and career. She also -- as it said in the article -- learned to use email in one try, and is likely even far more familiar with computers now.
In addition, in many other articles online, many ex-amish choose a wide variety of careers, from being musicians to doctors, lawyers, scientists, college professors and whatever else. Most of them -- because it is easy for them and they can make a comfortable living -- head into trades. This qualifies -- in my opinion at least -- as "making it in the 21st century."
Finally that article also demonstrated that this young woman was not shunned. I also asserted the story of an ex-amish doctor who still lives close to his family and has close ties to the amish community. He also is not shunned.
Shunning is complex, and usually done if a person is considered a "bad influence" on the family or youth in general. A person who is doing good work -- though outside the bounds of being amish -- likely will not be shunned by their families.
You assert that you are simply taking a 'realistic' view and accuse me of "admiring" the "quaint" amish and "romanticizing" them.
To form a realistic view, one has to have knowledge. That involves -- in these sorts of forums -- the accumulation of evidence. You provide that evidence as you go, to back up your claims. I have provided that. It demonstrates that my view *is* realistic.
Yes, you are welcome to your opinion and your sorry feelings for the amish. But, you are not welcome to be condescending toward me, or disparaging to another culture that you obviously have very little knowledge of. It is simply inappropriate.
I wouldn't tolerate it if you had put "Poor Black People in West Philly" as the group, or "Hispanics" or "illegal immigrants" or what have you. Why should I tolerate it since they are amish?
And hiding behind "oh well, we have to agree to disagree." I refuse to "agree to disagree" with your disparaging remarks. It's simply not just to do so.
red fox,
I'm sorry, but I cannot accept the "limitations of the medium" excuse here.
Foremost, I can only assume that most of us are familiar with this medium and it's limitations. Peggy, for example, has been utilizing this forum since January 2011. So, she has at least 1 yrs experience with this medium. I joined in April 2011, and so have a bit less. But beyond that, I have been on forums since 1994, which means that I pretty much understand the limitations of this medium.
I assume -- and I do not believe that it is unreasonable to assume -- that anyone who is over 25 and has been on a forum for over year has the capacity to communicate clearly within this media's limitations.
To assume otherwise is to assume that people lack the intelligence and adaptability to understand this media and communicate clearly within it. I do not like to assume that people are lacking in these things. Call it a "benefit of the doubt" approach if you will. Or an optimistic approach to people.
In this instance, I have quoted peggy's own statements and responded in a reasonable way -- providing anecdotal evidence as well as evidence from articles from the internet to counter her claims against the Amish.
She countered these with more wild claims, an accusation that her statements were being "read into" (eschewing responsibility for her own communication choices and blaming the reader for misunderstanding), and finally asserting that she is merely being "realistic" and asserting that my perspective is "romantic" and that I find the amish "quaint" (a position that I find personally condescending towards me and towards my relationships with amish people).
And no, I'm not reading that into her statements. They are clear as the bright blue sky -- because, guess what? I read her statements, and I read my own before publishing them, and I sometimes edit them after the fact if they do not clearly communicate my intent (my meaning).
Is it too much to ask that a person communicate clearly? And if they are called out for saying something that is inappropriate or condescending, that they look at it and say "I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. This is what I meant." as opposed to "You read into my statements! You obviously don't really get it!"
After all, I called out bae on the pepper-spray incident. And, I was right there too. You cannot simply hide behind "you are reading into it." he knows better; we all do. Why should any of us -- peggy included -- get a free pass?
Perhaps I'm just asking for people to be respectful of other people's cultures, other people's experience, and communicate with other people in this medium in a clear manner?
Is that inappropriate?
I think ineffective is what I've observed. From my perch, over here in grey rainy Seattle and at 4am, oy vey, both you & Peggy are talking at each other rather than to or with each other. I faulted the medium because I believe you're both good, kind, smart women who probably work towards connection and understanding in your lives.
I wonder what this convo would be like between two close friends... what curiosity might emerge about the others' stance, what inquiry into difference, what uncovering of shared understndings as well as dramatic differences? I am quite aware that I say this having taken a pretty unrelentingly closed stance a time or two in this forum! So I do understand the passion and convictions that lead to expressing a strong stance. (thinking of some of my responses to Alan, for instance.)
I know that I have regard for both of you, and the postings have begun to be onerous to read... and I just wonder if a different approach is possible.
K. Sleepy middle-of-the night typings here...
I mostly try to stay out of disputes like this, but from where I'm sitting, this is what I'm observing: On one side (Bae, Zoebird) the arguments are based on personal experience and interaction with Amish people, on the other side (Peggy) there has been no indication she's given that she actually knows any Amish, and is basing generalizations on perhaps what she's read or seen on TV or is projecting. Not saying Peggy has never talked with an Amish person, only that she has not indicated that she has done so.
I personally give more credibility to people who have a direct first-hand knowledge of a subject over people who do not.
flowerseverywhere
3-13-12, 9:37am
In any community or series of communities you see all kinds of people. The Amish, Christians, Mormans, Pro-life activists, democrats, republicans etc. are not one group living on an island. So I think based on people's life experiences there is a lot of truth to what everyone has posted. Each group grows in it's own way and within the group there area all kinds of members.
What distresses me about all of this is not the differing opinions, but that posting pictures of fetuses is supposed to somehow make us all see the light about how wrong we are. Back to the original post I don't think there is one person who wouldn't be ecstatic if abortion was no longer needed. It's the shaming, I know what is better than you attitude.
Interestingly I was talking to a retired social worker the other day. He was talking about before birth control he would deal with unwanted children. One kid was given away by his parents. They went to church and asked around and gave him away. Luckily the family took good care of him. My BIL has a younger brother who was abandoned in his town and his family took him in. No formal adoptions, they just took them in and raised them.
recently there was a tragic story where a young woman had a baby and put it in a dumpster. When it was found a few days later they determined it had been put in the dumpster live. All of the lecturing, shaming, arguing and laws won't make unwanted children wanted and loved and well cared for.
Oh get a grip people! sheesh!
Zoe, take a breath girl! Saying you think them quaint isn't condescending. I think they are quaint. Reality is subjective.
How do you know I haven't talked to/know any Amish? Isn't that assuming on your part.
"Typically, by the time a young person is 27 (and usually before), they are encouraged to make a choice to join the church or 'drift away' entirely and may be shunned (they may also not be shunned, though it is still worthwhile to recognize that the young people are still considered very separate from the rest of the community). "
"There are several different kinds of problems -- everything from abuse in families, hiding of people with disabilities, and genetic health problems that are as yet to be solved (though there are several 'english' doctors who are working on that specifically -- one of them formerly Amish himself, but desiring to go to medical school, he did, and simply "missed the time" that he could become Amish. in deciding to stick with modern medicine as a profession -- he simply 'drifted away' from the Amish community. And yet, not fully shunned, he is their go-to physician for his community, and he's managed to find a treatment for three common genetic diseases -- I'll look for the source, it was a local newspaper article in the Lancaster New Era newspaper from about 5-6 years ago). "
Your own words.
So, he isn't 'fully shunned', just sorta shunned. Because he wanted to be a modern medical doctor. I think the operative word in all your post is ex-Amish. Ex. Are you ex-American because you wanted to pursue business opportunity outside of the US? Are you ex-baptist, or whatever religion your family is because you are a yoga instructor? How do you think yoga would be viewed in the Amish community? Am I ex-Texan because I don't live there?
By my way of thinking, if you are born something, you are something. We aren't talking about crack whores or drug dealers here. We are talking about kids who dream of being an airline pilot, or musician or evolutionary biologist. These are not sinful things. Certainly not careers worthy of shunning, or even sorta shunning. Why is there ANY shunning? That's the religious element I don't like. When religion comes in, often sensibility goes out the window. I don't doubt the parents of these kids miss them and love them, but when your religion tells you you must keep your own kid at arms length, that they can't live in your community and attend your church, the church they grew up in, well, I find that repressive. (not regressive..that was a typo) You are tossed from your church if you choose any career not church approved. Do you deny that? If that's not true, then I am wrong. How is that not repressive? How does that not put pressure on kids to only choose the approved path?
If you would go back and read my original post on this, and stop trying to turn me into some kind of monster, you would see my original post said this way of life, as a choice, is fine, but that it is repressive for the young people because their choice is very limited. I never said they were stupid. I never said they couldn't read or talk to english, and I never said that some don't choose to continue their education. I simply said I think it's a harsh choice between the exciting, modern world and your family/church/community. Unfortunately, with the Amish, you can't have both.
I may not know 'hundreds' of Amish, but I know young people, and they are pretty much the same the world over. They see this modern, exciting world all around them, and I can imagine the Amish youth thinking, 'Now what is it about becoming a beautician that's sinful again'?
I think this discussion (or demonizing me!) is actually related to this whole thread. This thread is about choice, women's choice, and how women don't want to be damned for their (legal) choice. It's about how religious belief is trying to dictate that choice, for all of us. That's repressive, yes? I am an absolute believer in choice. I see, in the Amish, a group that on the surface seems nice and quaint (not an insult) and something many of us strive for (simplicity) but I also see, at night in the privacy of those homes, young people forced to choose between a very respectable career (not church approved) and their families/community/church. They can't just go away and seek their fortune with family blessing/welcoming them back home. They have to literally choose between everything they knew and loved and their dreams. Maybe you think it's ok if they are only sorta shunned, but I think it's just terribly sad.
Peggy,
Again, terms such as "get a grip" and "take a breath" are condescending statements toward me that assumes that you are being wholly misunderstood and a victim. And again, pushing off your own responsibility for your own words onto the reader.
Likewise, I have not made the assumption that you haven't spoken with or have relationships with amish or ex-amish people. Bae asserted that he thought this was likely. I made no comment. You have had ample opportunity to express your experience with the amish -- but based on your posts and the statements you have made about the amish, it is logical to assume that your knowledge is limited.
Similarly, I stand behind my statements -- which are also evidence that I am not romanticizing the Amish, something of which you accused me several times. It also serves to demonstrate how a person can criticize a community without being disparaging of that community.
In your construct of "shunned" -- your argument is illogical because you are fixated on what you think it means, or how you think it is applied, rather than looking at evidence as to how it is actually practiced within the community.
Then, you diatribe about naming. Ex-amish is a term that they give themselves, it is not a term that I gave them. If they choose to use the term, why shouldn't we use it?
It might be more academically correct to assert that the young people who do not choose to join the order in adulthood were never amish, because in order to be amish, you have to join, and you cannot join until you are of the right age (old enough to make the decision to join). So, any young person who chooses not to join, would technically not be ex-amish, and the only who would be ex-amish would be those who chose to join the order, and then chose to leave the order.
You then make correlations between someone who "no longer lives in texas" with the use of the term, as well as someone who is no longer whatever religion based on their profession. There are a lot of false comparisons here. There is a difference between them, and it certainly doesn't prove your point.
If a person actively rejects something -- such as no longer wanting to follow their community's or family's chosen faith -- then it may be that they are "ex." I would have no problem, for example, using the term "ex-catholic." Academically, it might not be accurate (as I have not been formally excommunicated), but it would still function effectively in communication about my background which I no longer follow or practice.
But by your logic, I would still have to be called catholic, even though I have rejected that faith practice. It would be more accurate to say that I was raised catholic, and that it certainly colors my perspective of many things, but it is entirely inaccurate to assert that I am "catholic" simply because I was raised catholic. It is more accurate to say that I am "ex-catholic." And, it isn't damaging to catholicism or to me to use this term.
In the alternative, when we choose to move, it often isn't because we are actively rejecting something. It may be, and it may be that people no longer want to associate with the ideas associated with that place. In this second instance, it would not be inaccurate for someone to call themselves "ex-texans."
But, what I have discovered in my process of moving place to place throughout the US, as well as internationally, is that where I come -- the cultural aspects -- really are a part of who I am. We jokingly say in the office that we are "so American."
Even so, we are "ex-pats." Yes, it is a term we use. Technically, we are ex-pat americans, and the ex-pat community here is diverse. Most of our friends are ex-pats, not kiwis. I find that interesting as well.
And it is accurate to call ourselves "ex-pats" and accurate and not at all denigrating for you to call us "ex-pats." You might call us ex-americans, but that would only be accurate when we give up american citizenship -- which we have not. If we did, then yes, we would be "ex-americans."
Finally, to the last paragraph -- you are not being demonized. Please quote where you are being demonized by me (or anyone). I strongly suspect that you cannot quote statements where you are being demonized because I have simply and respectfully pointed out the statements where you were being disparaging and condescending, asking you to take responsibility for your statements and communications.
You then say that you value choice absolutely, except that your statements do not bear this out. Your statements assert to me that you really only value those choices that you value.
You do not value a community that has this specific religious tradition, and you do not value those parent's rights to choose how to raise their children, and their children's right to choose their religion (80% do) or choose to go their own way (20%) outside of that religion.
You are saying you want these young women to have choice, but not their parents, and not their religious community. The reality is that if we do absolutely believe in choice, then we also absolutely have to live with the fact that people will make different choices, and sometimes those choices will have outcomes that we find "sad" or do not prefer.
While we can talk critically about these outcomes, this doesn't mean we must be or are allowed to be disparaging.
And, this situation is strikingly similar to the abortion situation. Because we are talking about the choices -- and the rights to choose -- of many people, as well as protected classes of individuals (unborn children; children).
In the abortion discussion, in speaking about the issue of the baby, we are also speaking to the issue of the woman. And, we are talking about what rights and responsibilities the baby has and when, as well as the mother. Because at some point, these two things are in direct opposition. The baby is viable, and therefore has legal rights and protections; the mother is also viable, and she also has rights and protections.
According to the state and relevant law, the baby's 'right to life' upon viability supersedes the mother's "right to choose." her choice is no longer absolute, because we -- as a community that created laws -- has determined when viability exists and a pregnancy must continue unless the woman is under medical threat.
The same is very much true of parenting. You seem to come down on the idea that the child has absolute right/choice in his/her upbringing, and ultimately in how their parents and church must respond to them as adults -- without even considering that the community and parents are making conscious choices on how to live, and raising their children accordingly.
And, we all know that there are rules around parenting -- that neglect is at issue, for example -- such that a child may be removed from a home and put into a more safe environment. But beyond that, our legal situation is such that parents are free to make choices in how to live their lives and how to raise their children -- and free to make choices in their religion.
As adults -- which is how the legal system roles out -- these children can then make their own decisions. And yes, that may mean giving up their communities and families.
But if you are an absolute believer in choice, then you would see that choice has far reaching consequences, and sometimes the choices of one outweigh the opportunities and choices of another. It's true in the abortion argument (before viability, woman prevails; after viability; child prevails); and it is true in the parenting argument (before adulthood, parent prevails; after adulthood, child prevails); and it is true in many other situations besides.
And yes, you are free to find that "sad" about any number of these situations.
But you are not free to be disparaging, condescending, and eschew responsibility for the way in which you choose to communicate your feelings on the matter.
Nor are you free to simply "claim" victimhood in this "situation" of our postings without any evidence to support that. No one has attacked you. No one has demonized you. No one has disparaged you. No one has been condescending to you.
If I have -- quote it. It's evidence. And I'll consider it, and apologize if necessary, and reframe to communicate my intent. If not, then this is another illogical argument on your part, one for which you need to take ownership.
poetry_writer
3-13-12, 4:42pm
In any community or series of communities you see all kinds of people. The Amish, Christians, Mormans, Pro-life activists, democrats, republicans etc. are not one group living on an island. So I think based on people's life experiences there is a lot of truth to what everyone has posted. Each group grows in it's own way and within the group there area all kinds of members.
What distresses me about all of this is not the differing opinions, but that posting pictures of fetuses is supposed to somehow make us all see the light about how wrong we are. Back to the original post I don't think there is one person who wouldn't be ecstatic if abortion was no longer needed. It's the shaming, I know what is better than you attitude.
Interestingly I was talking to a retired social worker the other day. He was talking about before birth control he would deal with unwanted children. One kid was given away by his parents. They went to church and asked around and gave him away. Luckily the family took good care of him. My BIL has a younger brother who was abandoned in his town and his family took him in. No formal adoptions, they just took them in and raised them.
recently there was a tragic story where a young woman had a baby and put it in a dumpster. When it was found a few days later they determined it had been put in the dumpster live. All of the lecturing, shaming, arguing and laws won't make unwanted children wanted and loved and well cared for.
I simply posted the picture of the ultrasound. There was no shaming. I said nothing at all except to point out it was 12 weeks. The picture is what it is.
Wow! You are relentless! I suppose you won't be satisfied unless I agree you are correct! Ok, you're correct! There, happy? Sheesh! I did not denigrate anyone. Show me where I denigrated anyone!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denigrate
Now, let's look at the definition of shunning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning
Looks pretty cut and dried to me. If they don't really shun, then why call it shunning? Your words. They don't call it mildly disapproving.
You just spent a half page reading between the lines on my simple statement, I thought it was sad that the young people, especially the girls, had limited opportunity. How is that denigrating? Only going to 8th grade is limiting. Not denigrating, but the truth. And it's limiting for anyone. Amish, inner city, anyone. How is that OK for the Amish and sad for the inner city kids? Let them be educated, fully educated, all of them, to the extent of a 21st century American, which is where they live, then let them choose the Amish life. That, to me, IS choice. Real choice. I also feel this way for inner city kids, kids in Appalachia, kids whose parents live in a van, all kids in America.
To me, the one being condescending is the one who says 'of course MY kid deserves all the encouragement and support and opportunity I can give him to embrace this wonderful, complex world and seek his bliss, but for these other kids...not so much'. It's BECAUSE I respect these kids that I believe every American kid should be afforded the same wonderful opportunity, encouragement and support to function in this world we live in as my kid, or your kid And I don't give exception in my opinion in this for families whose parents just don't happen to 'believe' in a world functioning education. That's not denigration. That's my opinion in this world we live in, right here right now.
Now, I never said they were stupid. I never said they were ignorant, except in the context of 'not knowing many modern things', I never said they were illiterate, or unfriendly, or anything denigrating. You, on the other hand, accused me of saying all those things, again reading into my words something that wasn't there. That is how you demonized me. You accused me of calling them stupid. I did not.
I own my words, but I'm NOT going to own your words.
I said take a breath because you are getting spun up over something I never said! But, I'm thinking you'll find a way to twist these words as well. Fine, have at it. I'm done with this ridiculous conversation. Apparently I'm not entitled to my own opinion without being demonized.
I simply posted the picture of the ultrasound. There was no shaming. I said nothing at all except to point out it was 12 weeks. The picture is what it is.
And if a picture shames anyone, what does that say?
Peggy,
You have asked me to quote where you were disparaging to the Amish. I have already done so, twice: posts 115 and 117 (my posts), both quoting post 85 (your post). I have directly addressed your accusations against me -- where I felt you were condescending and quoted that as well (the first paragraph of my last post, such as "get a grip" and "take a breath" quotes you directly as well).
From here, you then -- once again -- accuse the reader of "reading into" what you said (I already quoted you twice!) and thus are continuing to proclaim victimhood.
You then begin to attempt to "repound" your perspective towards me.
Please note that my issue is no longer about your opinion regarding the Amish, but rather your treatment of me, and your treatment of a class of people through your language.
So, what do I want? This is the relevant question.
I want you to behave with respect and decorum. And, I want you to own your words.
When someone owns their words, she usually does one of two things:
1. reads the statements and apologize, then re-write expressing her true intention; or
2. re-contextualizes the content which is essentially demonstrating what inferences she was making from that information provided.
In the instance where you quoted me, I did the second. I fully own the content, and contextualized it as the evidence with which I intended it to be used (which may or may not have been clear from the post).
Thus far, you have refused to acknowledge the statements that I have quoted and where I have demonstrated that they are disparaging or condescending, but keep demanding that I quote them and explain. Nor have you re-contextualized those statements, only continued on beating a horse despite evidence to the contrary (already provided) in order to further attempt to prove your point.
But ok.
Without this, then I can have a clear expectation of you, in your communications. If someone calls you out, you will play the victim. Good to know, right?
I wonder what this entire convo between Peggy & Zoebird wold look like without a single use of the word 'you' in it?
a friendly discussion?
Dude!
flowerseverywhere
3-13-12, 10:50pm
I simply posted the picture of the ultrasound. There was no shaming. I said nothing at all except to point out it was 12 weeks. The picture is what it is.
what I feel is what I feel regardless of your intent
flowerseverywhere
3-13-12, 10:52pm
And if a picture shames anyone, what does that say?
That the man who made them pregnant is not standing by their side which would eliminate so many of these unfortunate abortions that no-one wants to see happen. But women are always to blame and bear the brunt of pregnancy.
flowerseverywhere
3-13-12, 11:15pm
and the bottom line is women are much more likely to be in poverty then men
http://www.nwlc.org/our-blog/poverty-still-rise-women-2010-record-numbers-lived-extreme-poverty
The child poverty rate – already very high at 20.7 percent in 2009 – jumped to 22.0 percent last year, meaning more than one in five children was living in poverty. More than half of poor children lived in female-headed families in 2010.
who thinks that things are getting better in this economy? In the midst of all this the legislators, who are largely men continue to pass laws to try to label women as sluts and whores for trying to access birth control, try to outlaw abortion, and tell them to "pull them up by their bootstraps." the war on women is really a war on children. These poor innocents.
I really think that it is very easy to live in a little bubble about what should be. I for one would be ecstatic if abortion was no longer needed. but what I want and what is are two different realities.
poetry_writer
3-13-12, 11:21pm
what I feel is what I feel regardless of your intent
why do you feel that way looking at it....
poetry_writer
3-13-12, 11:21pm
That the man who made them pregnant is not standing by their side which would eliminate so many of these unfortunate abortions that no-one wants to see happen. But women are always to blame and bear the brunt of pregnancy.
?.....that certainly doesnt apply to all men.
flowerseverywhere
3-13-12, 11:24pm
?.....that certainly doesnt apply to all men.
absolutely. Most men are good husbands, good friends and good providers. If all women could depend on such partners would the abortion rate be so high?
In general, I would say that a discussion is friendly when both parties are willing to be respectful of each other, as well as when each party is willing to own their own statements, recontextualize as required, and also apologize and reframe when that is necessary.
But, instead, I feel that I am being told that I must accept the limitations of a medium as a valid excuse for an individual's miscommunication -- though that argument was never brought forth as valid when I confronted Bae regarding the pepper spray -- and that was an inferred conversation, and therefore a more difficult argument to make -- not a simple, direct statement that is disparaging/condescending that can be clearly quoted and identified).
Or, in the alternative, I could accept that I was "reading into" the statements and misunderstanding, and thereby victimizing the other person -- of course, there has been no evidence on this account.
Nor any evidence that I have been "unfriendly" or "disrespectful" in any way so far.
In the end, the question that I ask myself is this. How do I behave in these media? How do I communicate? Is it effective, pertinent, and clear? Is it respectful of any party involved -- the other posters, the communities about which we are speaking (ie, the amish, women, women who would have abortions, etc)?
WHen I feel that someone is behaving in a way that is in appropriate, what is the best possible means to 'call out' this behavior? I attempted at first to focus on the material, to provide evidence to the contrary of the claims, and when that tactic didn't work, I went directly to the issue that I had.
These statements are what I find problematic. This is why I find them problematic. This is the behavior or recourse that I expect out of this.
There, an entire statement without the word "you."
But at the end of the day, the process is the same regardless of with whom the communication is held.
You felt you were being told that you must accept the limitations of the medium as an excuse for miscommunication?
red fox,
Yes, as I stated prior. Perhaps that was unclear?
I feel that we all have ample experience with this medium, such that we understand it's limitations, and thus have the intelligence and adaptability to accommodate those limitations in our communications within this medium.
When we fail to communicate effectively, I assume that it is in error, and that the person has the opportunity to reframe (or recontextualized -- the term I have used before) their statements or to apologize and restate in such a way that better asserts the intended meaning.
In case anyone would be offended by post 125, wherein I describe in more detail why I consider the "limitations of medium" excuse not valid, by including an age 'starting point' of 25, please let me apologize to anyone who may be offended by this, and write according to my meaning.
I believe that those under the age of 25 are particularly savvy with this medium, and also tend to have a particularly playful and creative way of using it. It often defies my expectations and understandings, and creates a unique learning experience for me. I rarely find these playful, creative methods of communicating to be offensive -- they are simply, or tend to be, uniquely different than those in my own age group, or those in the age group about 10 years (or more) above me. We tend to be more "staid" -- perhaps out of our life experiences or comfort levels.
I do, however, enjoy communicating with those who utilize these creative methods -- regardless of age (because both younger and older are capable of it!) -- because I find it to be a valuable learning experience for me. I also like to "play" in this way as well, though I admit it is a bit of a mind-bender, breaking me out of common forms and tropes, which expresses ideas and feelings in ways that I cannot explain.
I do not believe that the communications on this thread that I found offensive fall into this category, as I have rarely found these playful versions to be that -- nor do I see evidenced in the writing that the person is working from this particular angle.
I certainly do not want anyone to think that I think that those who are younger than myself are less intelligent, mature, or capable of sound arguments. I know -- from my own experience and other evidences out there -- that young people (under the age of 25) are very capable, intelligent, curious, and excellent communicators -- and in fact often uniquely excellent in these modern incarnations of communication (texting anyone? my goodness!) :D
I am *reading* your post. You expect me to "read into" your post that you MEANT that you felt these children (poor kids!) were sadly not being encourage to "pursue their dreams!" beyond what their community values or they would be shunned!
But here is what you WROTE:
Originally Posted by peggy
I'm not talking about the quaint window dressing we all see, but the realities of the life. We can all admire simple living and buggies and oil lamps and farming. I do. But I admire it as a CHOICE, and not as some edict from god. Or rather the leading elder of the order, who has surprising latitude to enforce his interpretation of the 'rules'.
It's not a choice.
What you wrote:
It's not a choice.
What I wrote:
8th grade, despite some people's thought, does not prepare you for the realities of modern life. Sure, it prepares you to wait on tables, or scrub toilets, but not much else.
What you wrote:
Really, I'm reading into this?
What I wrote:
These people don't just have a comfortable relationship with computers or technology, and although you say you know those who do, we know that isn't the norm.
What you wrote:
"we" do? evidence?
Oh, wait, here is your evidence:
What I wrote:
It just isn't. That's their whole thing, remember?
What you wrote:
Obviously, you are very ignorant of the amish. Do I know about the amish? DO i remember? Yes. What about you?
What I wrote:
Being shunned by your community, and even your parents is a very big pressure on young people. People do what they know, largely, in this closed community as well as the greater modern community. It's a whole lot easier to just go with the flow rather than seek further education, without family support, separate yourself from the community you grew up with knowing this community now say you as a traitor, and cast yourself into an unknown, unfamiliar world.
What you wrote:
Yes, and obviously this is not a problem of just the amish, as you write. If this was your whole point, why make all of the other ignorant, condescending statements that you made?
What I wrote:
They can certainly choose this, that's their right. It's also my right to say I think it's a rather non-productive community at the very least, and terribly regressive(I acknowledged later this was a typo. I meant repressive) at the most.
What you wrote:
Yes, That's right. I'm reading into your opinion that you find these people "non productive and backwards."
So, if a kid wants to be a yoga instructor? How would they fare there? Do you think they could stay in their community and do this? I don't think so. What about being an artist? or a Musician? Or a scientist? And what if this kid was a woman? This community has a fairly narrow focus on approved careers. And if you want something different? Sorry. You have to choose between your parents, friends, and community and the thing that floats your boat.
what you wrote:
As evidenced, a kid can choose to leave, and they may not be fully shunned by their community. I've given several examples.
I don't think I'm being condescending. Anyone who has lived an extremely sheltered life would be overwhelmed by modern American life.
What you wrote:
Culture shock is not a terminal disease. Culture shock can be overcome, and in most instances, is. And even if it is overcome, often people choose to go back to their original culture/environment anyway. It is, perhaps, a more educated choice.
We have fundamentalist who won't let their kids go to public school because they fear the messages and ideas 'out there', but these people still have TVs and magazines and presumably function in the modern world. Take even those modern things away and you have a pretty sheltered person, innocent and ignorant of modern ways. Mind you, that doesn't equal to stupid, it just means what it says, ignorant of the ways.
What you wrote:
Right, and ignorance can be overcome.
What I wrote:
Do you think Amish sit around the table talking politics?
What you wrote:
Yes.
What I wrote:
Or modern music, movies, the art museum, fencing, world languages, science, world politics, advances in medicine, business, or a zillion other things we talk about and take for granted everyone knows even a little about.
What you wrote:
Yes, to many of these things (not music or movies, but pretty much the rest of it).
What I wrote:
Michael Jackson. You probably don't listen to him, or even admire his music, but you know who he is. And if someone makes a reference to him, in what ever context, you probably get it. That's a cultural reference.
What you wrote:
Right, without knowing all the cultural references of another culture, all is lost. I live in NZ. I don't get 90% of cultural references here. Seriously.
Poor me, so backwards and unproductive and not able to make a choice about how to live!
What I wrote:
And there are a million of those we don't even think about that color our everyday lives. . . . How many Amish do you think have read 1984? or Animal farm? of Atlas Shrugged? Or Catcher in the Rye?
What you wrote:
Right, because without these things, we just can't have a good life in the modern world, or have a real choice in regards to deciding not to continue in modern life or their own traditions.
What I wrote:
This is what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to demonize them, but I'm also not romanticizing them either. They are what they are. A fairly closed, strict religious sect, quaint buggies aside.
What you wrote:
So, this is what you are talking about?
That these people are ignorant, non-productive, and backward and incapable of making it in the modern world, and because of that, incapable of having a choice in regards to whether or not to continue in the modern world or be amish?
Demonized view? no.
Ignorant and condescending? yes.
Here is the entire post that you presume to damn me with. Tell me exactly what is ignorant and condescending? You're pretty much the only one calling names here. I stand by all my words. I admitted in a later post that I meant repressive, not regressive, (although regressive simply means opposing progress) and if you had actually read my posts instead of damning me, you would know that. There is nothing denigrating here, except your personal attack on me.
You seem to agree with me that they don't have the cultural references, the background in literature, education, or experience we all share in this MODERN world, which is what I'm talking about. I never said a person can't learn. You INFERED that. I just said an 8th grade education does not prepare you to live successfully in THIS MODERN WORLD. And it doesn't. That isn't denigrating. It's reality. And if your culture doesn't embrace or value education beyond 13, then you are hard pressed to 'go it alone'. I never said some don't. Again, your 'interpretation' of what I said. I just said it was very difficult. And the faster this world speeds ahead, the harder it will be.
You are so invested in making these people educated, and forward thinking, and hip and connected, you've got them more savvy than a New Yorker! You can't even allow them to be what they are, a closed religious sect that live a simple, fairly austere (simple, plain, disciplined) life. I would suggest you are the one being condescending. I accept them for who and what they are. But apparently that bothers you.
I own my words. They are not denigrating and I won't apologize or re-phrase them to fit your world view. Sorry Zoe, you are just going to have to accept that.
Now, if you want to discuss the merits of an 8th grade education,(dropping out at 13) and how it's doesn't prepare you to function successfully in a modern, 21st century world, that's another thread we can start.
My experiences with the Amish are extremely limited, but one in particular stands out. My Dad (the consummate cattle rancher from Nebraska) and I had the opportunity to spend a day with an Amish farmer in Ohio many years ago. My Dad was very politically active and very environmentally conscious. His dissertation, in 1952, dealt with his concerns regarding the use of chemicals in 'modern' farming and he eventually became quite well known in agricultural politics on a national level. Anyway, during the day in Amish country I have rarely seen two men so engaged by what the other had to say. Both men were talking well above my head at the time, but it was obvious the Amish farmer had no shortage of knowledge of nematodes, microorganisms, spores or any of the myriad other things that effect livestock and crops. That gentleman was also extremely aware of the shift taking place (in the late 1960's) regarding public policy and industrial agriculture.
I have no idea how that farmer acquired his knowledge, but he had it. It may be way off base, but from that single encounter I have always assumed that it was acceptable, in the Amish culture, to gain knowledge from other parts of the world and from there it was basically a matter of filtering it down to find what aligned with their values when deciding what to put to use. If that is true I would view that as extremely enlightened rather than backwards. To those with firsthand knowledge of that culture: is that close?
My experiences with the Amish are extremely limited, but one in particular stands out. My Dad (the consummate cattle rancher from Nebraska) and I had the opportunity to spend a day with an Amish farmer in Ohio many years ago. My Dad was very politically active and very environmentally conscious. His dissertation, in 1952, dealt with his concerns regarding the use of chemicals in 'modern' farming and he eventually became quite well known in agricultural politics on a national level. Anyway, during the day in Amish country I have rarely seen two men so engaged by what the other had to say. Both men were talking well above my head at the time, but it was obvious the Amish farmer had no shortage of knowledge of nematodes, microorganisms, spores or any of the myriad other things that effect livestock and crops. That gentleman was also extremely aware of the shift taking place (in the late 1960's) regarding public policy and industrial agriculture.
I have no idea how that farmer acquired his knowledge, but he had it. It may be way off base, but from that single encounter I have always assumed that it was acceptable, in the Amish culture, to gain knowledge from other parts of the world and from there it was basically a matter of filtering it down to find what aligned with their values when deciding what to put to use. If that is true I would view that as extremely enlightened rather than backwards. To those with firsthand knowledge of that culture: is that close?
You too Gregg? Show me! SHOW ME where I said they were backwards! Do it now, cause I'm getting pretty tired of being accused of saying something I didn't say. So go ahead, do it. Show me. You're supposed to be helper, well help. SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THEY WERE BACKWARDS, STUPID AND LAZY!
You know gregg, I've read lots of your posts and I didn't think you were illiterate and unable to read. To those of you who know him, is that true?
I would expect a farmer to know about farming. That's his business. Pretty much the only business along with related 'business' , fixing the farm equipment, animal husbandry, carpentry. think the girls know all that? Or maybe just 'girl' things like cooking and sewing, and milking.
You are all so anxious to present these folks as worldly and forward thinking, and hip and savvy, and connected, hell, we should all drop out of school at 13 and stay right in our own communities. Apparently we will learn all we need to know to function...in that community. How far would that have gotten you gregg? How far would that have gotten you bae? Do you think those good Amish parents are teaching their kids about geometry and algebra and computer science and computer chips and marketing and evolution and molecular biology, and physics, electrical repair and computer languages, or any foreign language besides english, or programming, or all the other bits of education you all take advantage of knowing and using.
It's a particular sort of arrogance that takes all the advantage of a modern 21st century education and experience but argues for keeping a certain segment away from this because, I don't know, we don't think they deserve it. Or we like driving into the country and buying milk from them, or quilts.
Which brings us back to my original point, which for the life of me I don't know why I'm being damned on.
I think it's sad that Amish kids have less opportunity in THIS MODERN WORLD than your kids or my kids. I may not know 'hundreds' of Amish, but I do know kids, and I'm not so arrogant as to think Amish kids are any less intelligent, curious, or excited by the world all around them. But when your family doesn't value education beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic (13) it's hard to rise above that. Sure there is continuing education, in home skills and farming skills, but that's pretty narrow, and the bigger (smaller) and faster the world grows all around them, the more these bright, curious kids will be forced to choose between home/family/church and 'the world'. I know y'all keep saying it's a choice these kids can make, but it's not a fully informed choice, is it, or there wouldn't be any backlash to not choosing it. And there would be better preparation towards making that choice. i.e. school past 8th grade. Heck, why not send them off to live with an english family for 6 months or a year. Then it would truly be an informed choice. I would certainly admire something like that.
Now how am I derisive or ignorant in saying that? How is it condescending to say I think these bright kids deserve every opportunity my kids, your kids, Appalachia kids, all kids deserve, without condemnation from their community. So, maybe they aren't 'fully shunned' (zoe's words)... How lovely.
Peggy, Gregg did not reference you at all. Please, I know you've been feeling attacked, and that is a dreadful feeling. May I ask you to consider that he is not talking about you?
PS - In my book, you have the right to your opinions!
loosechickens
3-14-12, 3:47pm
I've avoided entering into this, despite the fact that I know some Amish and Mennonites well, as well as several very fundamentalist homeschoolers who homeschooled their kids to make sure that no "worldly" information was imparted to them, and to ensure their willingness to accept creationism, the Bible as literal truth, etc., and also someone, a niece of Warren Jeffs, from the offshoot fundamentalist sect of LDS folks up in Colorado City, who lived until adulthood in that sect, and is now shunned by her family completely for escaping marriage to a 58 years old man when she was less than 16 years old, and leaving.
I hear what all of you are saying. We've known expert Amish cheesemakers, farmers, and others, and one of my best friends is an "english" living smack dab in the middle of an Amish settlement, who interacts and is friends with all her neighbors. (In fact, she's the one person in the neighborhood with a car, so is the 'go to' person for grocery lists, etc., and the first person to alert me to the fact that she gets cases and cases of frozen bread dough from WalMart for them, so those Amish ladies can sell their "homemade" bread to the tourists at the farmers' market).
Of course, they are intelligent, able in many ways, and if it were possible to come to adulthood with awareness and knowledge of all the world, and THEN choose to enter one of these groups, freely, I'd personally have no problem with it. We have friends who became members of a Mennonite community as adults, and it has been a fine choice for them.
Where I have my problems, and I THINK this is what Peggy is trying to address, is that in many cases, the children of these groups, BECAUSE they are kept from knowledge or experience of a wider world, often accept the limited horizons of the world of their particular group, without question, and perhaps these are the lucky ones, because the ones who do not accept these limited choices often have the hardest row of all to hoe.
When I look at two families I've described that we know well, the ones that homeschooled, like bae, to widen their childrens' horizons and to introduce them to large amounts of ideas, worldviews, critical thinking skills, etc., and the ones who homeschooled to make sure no "suspect" "worldly" information filtered in, for the kids homeschooled with the very rigid, creationist, fundamentalist homeschool curriculum, whle they are great kids, they DO and did have very limited horizons for possibilities for their lives. The idea that they might travel to a foreign country (other than, perhaps, as a missionary), just did not compute. The concept of going to college just wasn't part of their lives. I sat at their dining room table one time, waiting for my friend to finish her homeschooling class, and picked up one of the teenager's "social studies" textbooks. It opened to a page which explained, very carefully, why Bangladesh and other countries suffer floods and other natural disasters "because they worship false gods", and exhorting the students "aren't you glad that YOUR parents have exposed you to the truth about our Savior?" I guess, thereby, making sure they wouldn't be subject to floods and natural disasters, which made me wonder how such parents explain tornadoes in the South, etc.)
I wanted to stand up and say something like, "This is ONE way of looking at the world. You are only exposed to people who will not question this view. Just know that there are many other ways of seeing reality, and many, many facts which are being withheld from you that could change how you believe." (I could never have REALLY said anything to them without destroying my friendship with their parents). They only interacted with people from their church, only were exposed to the fundamentalist curriculum of their textbooks. They only knew US because we had been friends of their parents before their parents became fundamentalists, and they only saw us a few times a year, with huge elephants of things unsaid in our visits in order to maintain our friendships.
So when their schooling was finished, at about age 17 for each, the two oldest girls started a small housecleaning business until both married just a couple years later. The third one worked for a short time as a waitress, before becoming pregnant (somehow, I guess the abstinence education didn't work out well) and getting married at 17 because of that. The two youngest are still at home, and the boy works on the small farmholding and does a small chimney sweeping business. Those are their horizons. NONE of them had any opportunity or exposure to anything that might have increased their options. When I compare their lives with the lives of the other family, I want to cry for all the possibilities unborn. Are they happy? Apparently. But, it almost feels as though they didn't even question the possibility of other options.
Most of the Amish people I know, and who live around my friend, are older, so I don't have a lot of experience with Amish youth, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have a lot of this more or less stunted "possibilities in life" situation.
The woman I knew from the fundamentalist LDS group had half a dozen mothers and several dozen brothers and sisters. She WAS one who had a spark of not wanting to fit the mold, and because her mother was in an abusive plural marriage, she wanted a different life for her daughter, so when the father tried to marry her off at a young age, the mother helped her escape. But to this day, many years later, she is still estranged from her large family, none of which will have a thing to do with her, and she is marked in many ways from her early life experience, and not what many would consider "normal" yet.
I find myself sometimes with the same feeling when I see a mother, grandmother and teenaged boy that I see occasionally in a Barnes and Noble we go to. Both women weigh probably over 400 pounds, and the young boy is well on his way. We step in when parents physically abuse their children, but why doesn't someone step in when that child is fed to become morbidly obese at a young age? Is religious freedom SO complete that people "own" their children and can keep them from experiences or knowledge that they might want in later life if they even knew such experiences or knowledge existed, or would be acceptable to their families?
Why is it that somehow, many of the same folks who defend absolute freedom for parents to limit their childrens' lives, also seem to be the people determined to keep every zygote alive, and believe that real, live women, adults have no rights over their own bodies, or their reproductive health? Why is complete incursions into privacy and freedom in one case o.k., but in another is not?
I don't know.......but I hear what Peggy is trying to say. I'd feel much better if everyone were able to have access to all the information and be able to make informed choices, and if that choice was to enter a religious group with very rigid ideas was chosen freely with all information, maybe not a problem. But the fact that most of these kids have no way of even knowing what COULD be for them, not to mention the exclusion and shunning should they make a "wrong" choice, DOES mean that they don't have an opportunity to MAKE an informed choice, which I find sad.
I don't pretend to know the answers, but I do hear what she is saying, as well as hearing what the rest of you say, as well.
What is your alternative? Should we all turn our children over to the collective for proper orientation on the off chance that some may not approve of our lifestyle or choices?
loosechickens
3-14-12, 3:55pm
I don't know, Alan......should women turn over their rights to their own reproductive freedom and choices because certain peoples' religious and moral views seem to dictate that they should?
Should we concern ourselves far more with microscopic zygotes' rights than the rights of real, live children?
I would expect a farmer to know about farming. That's his business. Pretty much the only business along with related 'business' , fixing the farm equipment, animal husbandry, carpentry. think the girls know all that? Or maybe just 'girl' things like cooking and sewing, and milking.
You *do* realize that farming represents a rather complex and diverse realm of knowledge?
There seems to be some sort of assumption that farming is "lesser" somehow than, say, yoga instructing... My own farming, which is only a handful of crops, is quite challenging, managing an entire farmstead would require all sorts of skills and knowledge and experience. Especially if done in a sustainable, permaculturish fashion.
Do you think those good Amish parents are teaching their kids ... any foreign language besides english, or programming, or all the other bits of education you all take advantage of knowing and using.
Almost every Amish person I have met spoke multiple languages, generally English and at least one German dialect. I suspect they are more multi-lingual than your average "main stream" American. I was raised in a German-speaking household myself, and our Amish neighbors understood my German, their own German dialect, and English.
Sitting around a table with Amish folks, you'd figure this sort of thing out.
should women turn over their rights to their own reproductive freedom and choices because certain peoples' religious and moral views seem to dictate that they should?
Should we concern ourselves far more with microscopic zygotes' rights than the rights of real, live children?
If by reproductive freedom and choices you mean abortion, it seems the rights of the "microscopic zygotes" become more important than the host at some point. When you have competing rights of two beings, it seems that morals must come into play. Religion and morals are two separate issues.
ApatheticNoMore
3-14-12, 4:50pm
If by reproductive freedom and choices you mean abortion, it seems the rights of the "microscopic zygotes" become more important than the host at some point. When you have competing rights of two beings, it seems that morals must come into play. Religion and morals are two separate issues.
From a practical point of view, the hosts will still have to raise those microscopic zygotes when they are born, or at any rate although they could give them up for adoption, they will probably end up raising them. You can maybe make it harder for the hosts to get rid of the microscopic zygotes but you can't make them actually want to raise them. Problematic ...
From a practical point of view, the hosts will still have to raise those microscopic zygotes when they are born, or at any rate although they could give them up for adoption, they will probably end up raising them. You can maybe make it harder for the hosts to get rid of the microscopic zygotes but you can't make them actually want to raise them. Problematic ...
If we can agree that birth control is ok (one end of the spectrum) and infanticide is wrong (other end of the spectrum), the answer lies somewhere in the middle respecting the rights of both. If the host is worried about the consequences of raising a child, they could choose to intervene nearer the birth control end of the spectrum.
Unless the local PP is closed - do I hear Texas? - and that's the only place one can afford contraception. Texas has nearly re-entered the 14th century, IMHO.
You too Gregg?
Wooooo ahhhhh peggy. We've been having fun together long enough that you can be sure I wasn't gunning for you if I didn't quote you. I really am interested in, for complete lack of a better word, alternative cultures, including the Amish, and their methods and just wanted to jump in.
I think it's sad that Amish kids have less opportunity in THIS MODERN WORLD than your kids or my kids.
That is the perfect statement and perfect emphasis (seriously, no sarcasm). Brings up a lot of questions, huh? First, what difference does that make if Amish kids aren't going to live in this modern world? Is it a form of abuse or a statement of love to shelter kids from this modern world? If any parent teaches their kids the skills they need to thrive within their own culture shouldn't we offer them a huge :+1:?
If an Amish kid would be better off learning modern skills doesn't the same logic say an Aborigine kid living in the outback of Australia or a Toulambi kid in the Amazon would also benefit? Would our kids be better off if we taught them how to use a butter churn? A blow gun? Are our kids neglected because we have not taught them how to use a loom? The real question there is who gets to decide what represents "better off"? Who do you want to decide for your kids?
IMO, the real downside is that one of those Amish kids could be the one that would write the great American novel, discover the cure for cancer, golf better than Tiger Woods, get us out of debt, unlock zero point energy, be the next Rembrandt... Yes, the world would suffer to miss out on that, but it still doesn't give us a right to impose our values on others.
loosechickens
3-14-12, 5:35pm
And maybe that is the crux. The right of some to dictate the choices of others. On the one hand, many think it perfectly all right that if an adult woman becomes pregnant ,either from failure of contraception, even rape, etc., although said woman has free access to all information about pregnancy and childbirth, she should be forced to......... Undergo counseling, wait for 24-48 hours, undergo an invasive probing of her vagina, complete with showing her the pictures of the zygote, complete with listening to its heartbeat, in order for her not to make a "wrong" choice, etc. Yet many of the same people who want to make sure women have ALL the information before they choose to complete a pregnancy, seem cheerfully willing for large numbers of already born children to make important choices that will affect their entire lives after being systematically prevented from experiences and knowledge THEY would need to make an actual informed decision.
Maybe it the ludicrous quality of this that stymies me.
And maybe that is the crux. The right of some to dictate the choices of others. On the one hand, many think it perfectly all right that if an adult woman becomes pregnant ,either from failure of contraception, even rape, etc., although said woman has free access to all information about pregnancy and childbirth, she should be forced to......... Undergo counseling, wait for 24-48 hours, undergo an invasive probing of her vagina, complete with showing her the pictures of the zygote, complete with listening to its heartbeat, in order for her not to make a "wrong" choice, etc. Yet many of the same people who want to make sure women have ALL the information before they choose to complete a pregnancy, seem cheerfully willing for large numbers of already born children to make important choices that will affect their entire lives after being systematically prevented from experiences and knowledge THEY would need to make an actual informed decision.
Maybe it the ludicrous quality of this that stymies me.
And on the flip side, many folks seem to be of the opinion that a 'zygote' remains simple tissue until it's transformed by a live birth. That it's mother has the right to execute it at any time without even the courtesy of looking it in the eye (or even an image of it's eye) beforehand.
I agree with Midwest's remark that there is a middle ground between a collection of cells and a human. I'm not sure where that is, but to listen to pro-abortion folks, it doesn't matter. The language of pro-abortion doesn't allow words which may challenge the preferred orthodoxy, which seems way too self serving for my comfort level.
I'm stymied by the ludicrousness of it as well.
Thank you LC. You have put in words exactly my concern. I think these folks are closer to your example of the fundamentalist family than the hip, modern, savvy, connected people zoe keeps trying to convince us they are. I find limited opportunity for young people sad for them as well as any disadvantaged youth.
It is popular these days to strip the unborn of their humanity through language. The ultrasound image may be the first time some women realize that there's a baby in there.
Fine. But in that case, an external ultrasound will give an adequate image. To mandate a transvaginal ultrasound for this purpose is nothing more or less than intimidation - it really does feel very akin to rape to have this test, very invasive and highly uncomfortable as well.
Fine. But in that case, an external ultrasound will give an adequate image. To mandate a transvaginal ultrasound for this purpose is nothing more or less than intimidation - it really does feel very akin to rape to have this test, very invasive and highly uncomfortable as well.
Perhaps, but I'm guessing it's not as invasive as the actual abortion. Plus, as I understand it, the external version is not as accurate for early pregnancies, which is a moot point since the transvaginal ultrasound is not actually required by legislation the OP posted about.
You *do* realize that farming represents a rather complex and diverse realm of knowledge?
There seems to be some sort of assumption that farming is "lesser" somehow than, say, yoga instructing... My own farming, which is only a handful of crops, is quite challenging, managing an entire farmstead would require all sorts of skills and knowledge and experience. Especially if done in a sustainable, permaculturish fashion.
Almost every Amish person I have met spoke multiple languages, generally English and at least one German dialect. I suspect they are more multi-lingual than your average "main stream" American. I was raised in a German-speaking household myself, and our Amish neighbors understood my German, their own German dialect, and English.
Sitting around a table with Amish folks, you'd figure this sort of thing out.
I never said farming was a lesser career choice. Once again, you are 'paraphrasing me' to what you THINK I said. But, if that is the only choice...
If this were an agriculture society, then farming would represent a larger percentage of career choice. But it's not. This is America, a modern, progressive, technologically advanced country with many many career choices. Farming represents a very small percentage of the choice. Saying that doesn't denegrat farming, it just puts it in perspective.
What I don't understand is how you, an apparently well educated, progressive, well traveled person would advocate 'keeping hem down on the farm'. How is it that you, who apparently has educated your daughter to embrace the world with no limits, and encourage her to go for it with your full support, would advocate limiting these kids, who live in THE SAME WORLD AS YOUR DAUGHTER, AND ARE SMART ENOUGH TO NOTICE?
We aren't talking about some primitive tribe in deepest darkest jungle somewhere. We are talking about American kids who live here, now, in this country. What if this were simply a group of parents, not 'The Amish', who pulled their kids out of school at 13 to work on the farm. (Actually I do know many older folks who faced just this, none of whom thought it was to their advantage!). How would you feel about that? Would you wonder about these kids future opportunities? Would you be outraged at parents who severely limited their kids futures. These are American kids. Americans, in the 21st century.
Simplicity in life and actions, as a choice, is admirable. I certainly think it is. But it kind of loses its warm, fuzzy luster when it is a 'choice' through a simple lack of other choices.
Fine. But in that case, an external ultrasound will give an adequate image. To mandate a transvaginal ultrasound for this purpose is nothing more or less than intimidation - it really does feel very akin to rape to have this test, very invasive and highly uncomfortable as well.
Requiring an unnecessary procedure to 'educate' the apparently ignorant woman is invasive, no matter how it is conducted. It is invasive of her body and invasive of her intelligence.
Perhaps, but I'm guessing it's not as invasive as the actual abortion. Plus, as I understand it, the external version is not as accurate for early pregnancies, which is a moot point since the transvaginal ultrasound is not actually required by legislation the OP posted about.
Alan, I do understand most of your positions here, and I agree with many of them. Also appreciate the thoughtful approach you've taken.
Your conclusion here is logical, but not completely accurate. The original legislation as proposed in VA, and in other states, did specifically mandate the T-V ultrasound - it was the outcry that caused it to be modified before the vote. In the spirit of clarification (not one-upmanship), I'd like to say this about the procedures: I've had both (D&C to remove polyps, rather than a pregnancy, identical procedure). The T-V ultrasound was much, much more invasive. For a rape victim, despite the professionalism and support of the techs, it's difficult to bear. At my age, after multiple childbirths, and a lifetime of problems with that system, most exams are "no biggie," but even though I willingly consented to it as a necessary diagnostic procedure, it was still distressing. Many older women, like my mother, simply refuse to have it - it's too sexual. I put it off for quite some time despite a truly difficult medical condition, precisely because the exam is so invasive. I had flashbacks during this exam. The actual procedure afterwards was by comparison a piece of cake - it resembles the annual PAP test more than anything, just longer. Sedation and anesthesia are also availble for the procedure, but not for the exam. I can't imagine how it would be to have been forced to have this exam, not because it was medically necessary, but because someone else wanted to control my decision-making.
As to the accuracy issue, that's a valid point - but it should be a medical decision made between the woman and her doctor specific to her circumstances, not legally mandated for the sole purpose of "helping" a woman to make a different decision, or intimidating her into doing somebody's "the right thing."
If a child is conceived in violence or coersion - and many are - it's simply further violence to put barriers in the woman's way to making her own decision how to deal with it. I favor fewer abortions, but this isn't the way to go about it.
...
I'm stymied by the ludicrousness of it as well.
I am as pro abortion as anyone, and as supportive on the far end continuum scale of life as anyone here, but I agree with you that there is an odd lack of balance on this website. It's IS ludicrous that no one speaks of the other lifeform, for lack of a better term, that looses in the abortion deal. There is a baby/zygote/mass of human cells/a life or whatever term you want to use, that is wiped out.
It just seems dishonest to me, and tone deaf. But you really cannot expect balance here on this site, now you know better.;)
What I don't understand is how you, an apparently well educated, progressive, well traveled person would advocate....
I'm not though, am I?
It is you who are putting these words in my mouth, and engaging in sophistry.
Which is not conducive to honest and open communication.
TTFN
I am as pro abortion as anyone, and as supportive on the far end continuum scale of life as anyone here, but I agree with you that there is an odd lack of balance on this website. It's IS ludicrous that no one speaks of the other lifeform, for lack of a better term, that looses in the abortion deal. There is a baby/zygote/mass of human cells/a life or whatever term you want to use, that is wiped out.
It just seems dishonest to me, and tone deaf. But you really cannot expect balance here on this site, now you know better.;)
An odd lack of balance? I am confused by this... This is a private forum of personal expression, so ya get what ya get. And, I've not noticed any lack of folks speaking their minds here! if you want another perspective to be expressed, I think it's up to you.
ApatheticNoMore
3-14-12, 9:36pm
I really didn't see many people arguing that abortion is great (IMO anyone not AT THE VERY LEAST using barrier methods who isn't planning on therefore raising a kid is insane) but noone was arguing the banning abortion position if that's what you mean. When you talk about reducing abortions, adoption might play a small part, but your mostly talking about birth control.
Thank you LC. You have put in words exactly my concern. I think these folks are closer to your example of the fundamentalist family than the hip, modern, savvy, connected people zoe keeps trying to convince us they are. I find limited opportunity for young people sad for them as well as any disadvantaged youth.
Assuming you are correct and the Amish are a fundamentalist family rather than a hip, modern....people, what's wrong with that? I have philosophical or religous differences with many people, but I try not to discriminate against or judge them as long as their choices don't impact me or others in a negative way. Live and let live.
Besides, the Amish guys build pole barns much cheaper than the other contractors. :).
I really didn't see many people arguing that abortion is great (IMO anyone not AT THE VERY LEAST using barrier methods who isn't planning on therefore raising a kid is insane) but noone was arguing the banning abortion position if that's what you mean. When you talk about reducing abortions, adoption might play a small part, but your mostly talking about birth control.
If someone isn't using birth control, I agree they better be ready for a kid. I'm all for birth control and my experience has been that most youth in public school know where babies come from and can obtain birth control at little or no cost (condoms aren't expensive).
I've read some comments on this forum that seem to support the notion that birth control is not easily or cheaply available. I was always able to go into a gas station and buy them. Not that difficult or expensive.
With regard to pregnancies resulting from rape, do you have any idea what % of abortions that would be? My suspicion (which could be proven wrong) is that the % of abortions from rape is quite low.
In my ethical framework, early term abortions from rape, danger to the mother, and/or a child that will not survive are much more in the gray zone than say a late term abortion because the parents didn't engage in adequate family planning. I suspect (and hope) those late term situations are the exception rather than the rule.
poetry_writer
3-14-12, 11:11pm
Fine. But in that case, an external ultrasound will give an adequate image. To mandate a transvaginal ultrasound for this purpose is nothing more or less than intimidation - it really does feel very akin to rape to have this test, very invasive and highly uncomfortable as well.
i once worked at a crisis pregnancy center (free pregnancy tests, help with parenting classes, baby clothes, doc visits) They got an ultrasound machine and gave people the choice to see it. you do NOT have to use a vaginal ultrasound to see the baby. Most who see it choose to not abort. In any other situation people demand that women "be informed!!!" ..but in this case.....people seem to prefer "ignorance is bliss". Pretend it doesnt look like a baby and call it a zygote. Of course the ultrasounds show otherwise which leads to a dilemna for those who are abortion minded. Its a fully formed baby with a beating heart that is often aborted.
poetry_writer
3-14-12, 11:14pm
And maybe that is the crux. The right of some to dictate the choices of others. On the one hand, many think it perfectly all right that if an adult woman becomes pregnant ,either from failure of contraception, even rape, etc., although said woman has free access to all information about pregnancy and childbirth, she should be forced to......... Undergo counseling, wait for 24-48 hours, undergo an invasive probing of her vagina, complete with showing her the pictures of the zygote, complete with listening to its heartbeat, in order for her not to make a "wrong" choice, etc. Yet many of the same people who want to make sure women have ALL the information before they choose to complete a pregnancy, seem cheerfully willing for large numbers of already born children to make important choices that will affect their entire lives after being systematically prevented from experiences and knowledge THEY would need to make an actual informed decision.
Maybe it the ludicrous quality of this that stymies me.
To make an INFORMED choice maybe they need to see what it is they are carrying inside them. And no you do not have to use a vaginal ultrasound. INFORMED means just that..informed. What if a woman has an abortion without being informed and later comes across a picture of an ultrasound of the perfectly formed baby she has aborted? How do you think she feels then?
poetry_writer: "...without being informed.." you're not her mommy or daddy. A woman, or man, get to make their own decisions in their lives. Whether they are happy with their decisions or regret their decisions, that's all on them.
poetry_writer
3-14-12, 11:36pm
poetry_writer: "...without being informed.." you're not her mommy or daddy. A woman, or man, get to make their own decisions in their lives. Whether they are happy with their decisions or regret their decisions, that's all on them.
Indeed it is all on them. Thats why it needs to be a truly informed decision.
Pregnant women know what's inside of us. Doctors can give us whatever information we ask for. Each pregnant woman decides what she wants to know, from whom. It's called privacy & the right to decide for oneself. If a pregnant woman wants a TV ultrasound, she can ask her PCP. If she wants a religious opinion about her pregnancy, she can go to her trusted faith leader.
Maybe these menfolk who are all up in our business, and I mean that as it sounds, need to get legal permission to use their giggle stick when & how they want to. After all, they are half of the baby making process last time I checked.
Seriously time for a Lysistrata.
I am as pro abortion as anyone, and as supportive on the far end continuum scale of life as anyone here, but I agree with you that there is an odd lack of balance on this website. It's IS ludicrous that no one speaks of the other lifeform, for lack of a better term, that looses in the abortion deal. There is a baby/zygote/mass of human cells/a life or whatever term you want to use, that is wiped out.
I am pretty much against abortion as a routine matter of course.
Also, I believe in considering the interests of all parties involved in a moral decision. In this case, both the mother and "fetus".
I'm also perfectly happy calling the "fetus" a "human" or "child" from the very instant of conception, for the sake of argument. And equally considering its interests in any analysis of its fate.
However, I think the mother's interests clearly outweigh those of the child until pretty darned far along in the gestation process, so I'm OK with the mother deciding that abortion is the way to proceed if she wishes. I'm fine with calling it killing, of a human being. It is regrettable IMHO, but not necessarily wrong. And in most cases, I wouldn't presume to decide when exactly it is wrong, or right, that's a decision best left up to the mother.
(Furthermore, I don't see a moral difference that allows me to treat a child's fate differently depending on the circumstances of its conception: rape, incest, birth control failure, unprotected sex, ... Its interests do not hinge on those circumstances, and I think they have no place in the analysis except as a distraction or excuse or rationalization.)
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 12:20am
I am pretty much against abortion as a routine matter of course.
Also, I believe in considering the interests of all parties involved in a moral decision. In this case, both the mother and "fetus".
I'm also perfectly happy calling the "fetus" a "human" or "child" from the very instant of conception, for the sake of argument. And equally considering its interests in any analysis of its fate.
However, I think the mother's interests clearly outweigh those of the child until pretty darned far along in the gestation process, so I'm OK with the mother deciding that abortion is the way to proceed if she wishes. I'm fine with calling it killing, of a human being. It is regrettable IMHO, but not necessarily wrong. And in most cases, I wouldn't presume to decide when exactly it is wrong, or right, that's a decision best left up to the mother.
(Furthermore, I don't see a moral difference that allows me to treat a child's fate differently depending on the circumstances of its conception: rape, incest, birth control failure, unprotected sex, ... Its interests do not hinge on those circumstances, and I think they have no place in the analysis except as a distraction or excuse or rationalization.)
You are fine with killing you said. What can one say to that?
loosechickens
3-15-12, 12:22am
I know a lot of prochoice people, and I am prochoice myself, but I have never met a single person I would describe as proabortion. Most people in the prochoice group would prefer abortion to be as rare as possible while remaining legal, by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, so it would seem if someone is truly appalled by abortions, they would be moving heaven and earth to prevent unwanted pregnancies themselves. Instead, many seem to put as many obstacles in the way as possible, from depending on abstinence only sex education for teenagers, which has proven to be ineffective, except in early teenaged years, DNA having a strong desire to replicate, and hormones being what they are, and preventing easy access to birth control, family planning education, etc.
Ideally, I think MOST of us, of whatever view, would like to see abortion unnecessary. And the way to reduce abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Why not work together with that for a goal.
It still comes down, poetry_writer, to you wanting women to have a "fully informed" choice, because you have a dog in the hunt and a specific decision that you want to see them make, and seem willing to enlist government into making sure that your view is forcefed those women. Informed choice IMPLIES choice, and women, as adults, are fully able to make their own decisions about informing themselves. They have access to all the information they need or desire without politicians and religious zealots forcing it on them. They don't need (mostly men) passing laws forcing intimidating and unwanted procedures and difficulties between them and their right to make decisions about their own reproductive lives.
To be willing to force unwanted procedures on adult women to make sure they have "all the facts", one must surely want young people in closed, religious sects that prevent them from having full information about the world to have "all the facts", too, so THEY could make informed decisions, right?
If it is the government's place to force information on some, then it must be appropriate for information to be forced upon others. You don't really get to pick and choose. Either you believe in personal freedom or not.
Of course abortion is a serious decision. I've always been grateful that it was a decision I was never forced to have to contemplate, and I've never known women to have taken it lightly. Every woman that I've known who has made the decision to abort considered long and hard, weighed competing rights, their own life situation, etc., and it was a wrenching decision.
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 12:32am
You certainly put plenty of words in my mouth loosechicken. In every other situation on the planet you DEMAND women be allowed to be informed. In this one, you shrivel up like its a dirty word. Every woman has to live with the choices she makes. Information is always good. Isnt it? only when you dont want to be informed cause to be so makes you very very uncomfortable. Better to be informed ahead of time than too late, isnt it.
iris lily
3-15-12, 12:35am
You are fine with killing you said. What can one say to that?
I agree with everything bae said, that's pretty much my position as well. It is killing, it is what it is.
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 12:48am
I agree with everything bae said, that's pretty much my position as well. It is killing, it is what it is.
and you also are ok with killing? I find that sick and twisted. You are OK with KILLING. Twisted....unless of course you are saying it for shock value. if not, then its simply sick to say "I find killing ok"
iris lily
3-15-12, 12:54am
and you also are ok with killing? I find that sick and twisted. You are OK with KILLING. Twisted
You can use whatever labels you like, but I think you knew full well when you entered into this conversation where you would lead it.
...if not, then its simply sick to say "I find killing ok"
It is next to impossible to live on this planet without killing.
Even if you limit the discussion to killing of humans, not all killing is murder, sometimes killing is needful. Sometimes killing is even an affirmative moral duty.
That's not "sick and twisted", unless you haven't thought it through.
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 1:03am
It is next to impossible to live on this planet without killing.
Even if you limit the discussion to killing of humans, not all killing is murder, sometimes killing is needful. Sometimes killing is even an affirmative moral duty.
That's not "sick and twisted", unless you haven't thought it through.
We are talking about humans.
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 1:04am
You can use whatever labels you like, but I think you knew full well when you entered into this conversation where you would lead it.
It led to you saying killing is ok.
We are talking about humans.
And as I said:
... not all killing is murder, sometimes killing is needful. Sometimes killing is even an affirmative moral duty.
That's not "sick and twisted", unless you haven't thought it through.
It led to you saying killing is ok.
Yes, exactly.
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 1:09am
And as I said:
... not all killing is murder, sometimes killing is needful. Sometimes killing is even an affirmative moral duty.
That's not "sick and twisted", unless you haven't thought it through.
When is killing a human ok?
loosechickens
3-15-12, 1:09am
So, I am assuming, poetry_writer, that you are against things like our invasion of Iraq, the tens of thousands of little children who have been killed there and in Afghanistan, the death penalty, etc?
As bae says, it is pretty much impossible to go through life without killing, whether it's other forms of life, human life, etc. Heck, having fifty million citizens in this country without access to health insurance probably involves a lot of human life being killed, people dying unnecessarily, etc.
Look at all the little children already born who are abused, and even killed by their parents. Look at the kids that social services, stretched to the max already, let slip through the cracks and who die in miserable surroundings. Try not to waste all your angst on a collection of cells unable to live outside the womb....spend some of that on all the little children dying everywhere, all around you in this world. The ones who are already born.
Wasted effort......going to bed.......
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 1:11am
Yes, exactly.
going for the shock value ....
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 1:13am
So, I am assuming, poetry_writer, that you are against things like our invasion of Iraq, the tens of thousands of little children who have been killed there and in Afghanistan, the death penalty, etc?
As bae says, it is pretty much impossible to go through life without killing, whether it's other forms of life, human life, etc. Heck, having fifty million citizens in this country without access to health insurance probably involves a lot of human life being killed, people dying unnecessarily, etc.
Look at all the little children already born who are abused, and even killed by their parents. Look at the kids that social services, stretched to the max already, let slip through the cracks and who die in miserable surroundings. Try not to waste all your angst on a collection of cells unable to live outside the womb....spend some of that on all the little children dying everywhere, all around you in this world. The ones who are already born.
Wasted effort......going to bed.......
Yes time for you to go to bed.. You ramble like a.......chicken out of its pen.....:o)
loosechickens
3-15-12, 1:19am
Jillygal......we've missed ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And if their "informed decision" still leads to abortion, then what? Pile on more requirements, longer waiting periods, more "counseling" - what? It's not really about "information" is it?
It's mandatory motherhood you want, and we're getting closer to it every day. See how that worked out in Hungary under Ceauescu.
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 1:25am
Jillygal......we've missed ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes. I thought you knew who i was. That was a name I used several years ago. And you remembered it. Which i find....well...weird LOL. Very ...weird.
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 1:26am
And if their "informed decision" still leads to abortion, then what? Pile on more requirements, longer waiting periods, more "counseling" - what? It's not really about "information" is it?
It's mandatory motherhood you want, and we're getting closer to it every day. See how that worked out in Hungary under Ceauescu.
There is no reason for "mandatory motherhood". Dont reproduce. Use protection. Use condoms. Use something! And the problem would be avoided.
There is no reason for "mandatory motherhood". Dont reproduce. Use protection. Use condoms. Use something! And the problem would be avoided.
Is there some form of contraception that is 100% effective, and usable without nasty side effects by everyone?
...
When is killing a human ok?
I bet you can figure it out.
There is no reason for "mandatory motherhood". Dont reproduce. Use protection. Use condoms. Use something! And the problem would be avoided.
May you never have unintended consequences, or, G-d forbid, accidents, in your life.
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 1:35am
May you never have unintended consequences, or, G-d forbid, accidents, in your life.
and the convo deteriorates into ...nothing...
loosechickens
3-15-12, 1:54am
No mystery, dear. Nothing weird. Only the very limited number of ways you had to riff on "chickens". It is like a little kid whose epithets are limited to "pooh pooh head". Even under another name, when ya hear "pooh pooh head", ya know it's him. O. K., now I really do have to go to bed. G'nite.
Even under another name, when ya hear "pooh pooh head", ya know it's him.
See, here I thought it was Mark V. Shaney again.
and the convo deteriorates into ...nothing...
Well, subtlety is different than nothing!
Here is the entire post that you presume to damn me with.
I am not damning you. I'm calling you out for inappropriate behavior. I'm not taking issue with you, I'm taking issue with the words that you stated. Likewise, I'm not presuming anything (as this assumes a great deal, and there is actually very little that I'm assuming. I'm taking your words on face-value.)
Tell me exactly what is ignorant and condescending?
I have. This will be the third time. 115, 117, and now this one.
First, you asserted that you felt that the amish were "at worst, regressive." "Regressive" means backwards.
Considering a community backwards -- by using a term that means backwards -- is condescending toward that community.
But, I see from your post here:
I admitted in a later post that I meant repressive, not regressive, (although regressive simply means opposing progress) {snip}
I apologize that I did not read/see that. If it is the case (and if you could reference the post that would be helpful, but it is not necessary), then I apologize for continuing on this particular vein after the fact. Assuming that you did reframe (and I'll give the benefit of the doubt rather than having to re-read everything *right now!* to verify it), then I accept this reframing as being closer to your meaning, and that you did not mean to disparage the amish in this way.
Second, you also assert that the amish are ignorant and incapable of living in the modern world because of their education -- that they are only capable of washing toilets or waiting tables. You give many examples from books to cultural references to modern technological advances.
But of course, there is ample evidence to the contrary -- which I provided. This evidence demonstrates that
1. the amish are often, and obviously, more educated than 8th grade based on their lifestyles;
2. many amish who choose to join their community have higher education (to qualify for higher education, you have to demonstrate the intelligence and ability to complete the material first, which indicates that they do not lack education, even if it isn't formal after age 13);
3. the amish who choose to not join their community usually seek higher education and/or go into the trades where they already have experience, thus "making it" in the modern world.
You perpetually asserted the opposite -- without providing evidence, and becoming hung up on how you believe shunning is practiced within the culture (despite evidence to the contrary there as well).
When you state that a person is simply too ignorant, uneducated and therefore incapable of living in the modern world -- amish or not -- this is a disparaging statement.
Likewise, I find it condescending to be told to "take a breath" or "sheesh, get a grip!" these are condescending, personal attacks against me, asserting that I both need to calm down and that I do not have a "grip" (on reality). I quoted you in this as well. I also find the accusation that I am not "actually reading your posts!" as personally disparaging.
And example exists in your last post as well:
and if you had actually read my posts instead of damning me, you would know that.
You have also stated "do you even read what you write?" to me.
I very much take this world online seriously. I take my communication seriously, and I think it is important to carefully read -- to the best of my ability -- other people's posts.
You're pretty much the only one calling names here.
Actually, I have not once called you a name. I have asked you several times to quote me where I have called you names, demonized you, or -- for that matter -- damned you. Feel free to quote me where I have personally attacked you at all.
I have only asserted that your words were disparaging toward the amish and condescending towards me. I quoted those words and explained my position several times.
You cannot simply 'claim victimhood' here, when there is no evidence of you being a victim of anything.
I stand by all my words.
I will accept the regressive/repressive reframe -- I'm sorry that I didn't catch it before. But so far, you have refused to accept that you have been condescending towards me several times in our communications here. Likewise, you accuse me of being condescending, but do not provide any evidence to this. It seems to me that since you refuse to even deal with these direct quotes of your statements towards me, you have no intention of 'standing by all" of your words.
You seem to agree with me that they don't have the cultural references, the background in literature, education, or experience we all share in this MODERN world, which is what I'm talking about. I never said a person can't learn. You INFERED that. I just said an 8th grade education does not prepare you to live successfully in THIS MODERN WORLD. And it doesn't. That isn't denigrating. It's reality. And if your culture doesn't embrace or value education beyond 13, then you are hard pressed to 'go it alone'. I never said some don't. Again, your 'interpretation' of what I said. I just said it was very difficult. And the faster this world speeds ahead, the harder it will be.
We actually disagree here. I thought I was clear in this. I do not think that people need to have the same cultural experiences in order to make their way in that culture's world. I believe that humans are infinitely intelligent and adaptable, regardless of the level of difficulty or the disparity between the person's prior culture and new culture.
And, you speak in absolutes here, too "It just doesn't." --which, again, is condescending because it asserts that any disagreement with your assertion is absolutely wrong and that the other person living in a fantasy, without evidence. But as far as I can tell, so far, the only person to not provide *any* evidence on the topic of the amish thus far is you (with the exception of amish.net, which actually didn't seem to support your post, but that's neither here nor there).
And, most of what you assume has been demonstrated to be false. You assume that the amish don't value education beyond age 13. The reality is that young people are educated -- outside of the traditional education that we might understand and utilize - in ways that their community values (even though you may not value it). And that these young people can and often do go on to higher education, some choosing to stay and some choosing to leave.
These sorts of statements greatly misrepresent the amish -- in both my experience and education, as well as the evidence that I provided to you in prior posts -- and yet you still keep making these statements over and over, with absolutisms such as "And it just doesn't."
Likewise, my inference was a logical inference based on what you had posted.
When a person is asserting their position, their process is to assert evidence that leads to specific inferences and outcomes. The idea is that the writer (or communicator if one is communicating orally or what have you) is providing evidence in such a way that the reader will infer the proper intent and meaning of the writer.
Thus, if I am inferring it, it is logical to have done so based on the evidence that you provided.
You are so invested in making these people educated, and forward thinking, and hip and connected, you've got them more savvy than a New Yorker!
Here is an example of "reading into things." I've never stated these things, nor would it be logical to infer this from the statements that I have made or the evidence that I have provided regarding the amish (both my experience and other articles from the internet).
You can't even allow them to be what they are, a closed religious sect that live a simple, fairly austere (simple, plain, disciplined) life. I would suggest you are the one being condescending. I accept them for who and what they are. But apparently that bothers you.
Again, this is a wild, false claim. You have no evidence to support this claim, and I fail to understand why you would make it.
I own my words. They are not denigrating and I won't apologize or re-phrase them to fit your world view. Sorry Zoe, you are just going to have to accept that.
Now, if you want to discuss the merits of an 8th grade education,(dropping out at 13) and how it's doesn't prepare you to function successfully in a modern, 21st century world, that's another thread we can start.
I don't think this is necessary, because it is out of context.
Foremost, the amish -- for which this is contextual -- do not "drop out." They finish their formal education (as we understand formal education) at 13, and then begin their education. You might call it their life-learning, or continuing educaiton, or skilled learning. Then, as they enter into young adulthood, they may get more formal education (in the form of secondary education) or they may not. And they may also become amish or not become amish.
In not becoming amish, they may choose to get any amount of education -- and they are capable of it because they are educated. Are they educated in the same way as the average american teenager? No, they are not.
But neither is bae's daughter.
And that is where the argument is *relevant.*
There is a process out there called "unschooling." It is where the idea of formalized education (for which you advocate so highly) is considered problematic, so much so that a parent wants to eschew formal education all together. No curricula, no direct process.
So, does this create entirely ignorant, ill-prepared, uneducated children?
No, it does not. Every unschooled child whom I have met is far beyond his/her own peers. S/he is capable of learning anything, enthusastic about it, and follows his/her passions.
What is the process? When a child suggests an interest, the parents provide support of that interest (this is, admittedly, the antithesis of the amish -- but there *is* a point that is relevant). And by following this interest, the child self-educates. . .well, for his/her whole life.
These children also usually go to university, but most go after they have learned a trade. It's an interesting process.
But why is it relevant?
Because we are talking about choice -- the choices that parents get to make in regards to how they educate their kids, what it means for their kids, and what it means for the whole community (our society as a whole, which includes sub-communities such as 'hippies' and 'republicans' and 'amish').
Whether we are talking about the amish -- effectively home-schooling from 8th grade on -- or an unschooler who never sends his/her child to school and never sets them to a curriculum, or a fundamentalist christian who doesn't want their children to learn the theory of evolution, or any other formation that you can think of -- what we are talking about is what individuals value for themselves and their children.
A parent -- like myself -- is going to choose for their child based on their values. The amish value their way of life -- and so they act in accordance with those values.
While I might have any number of qualms about how another person may choose to educate their child, at the end of the day, I have to recognize that their values and my values are divergent.
And because they are divergent, there may be some conflict or tension in those values. And that's ok, truly.
Which is also why your last claim -- that I somehow want you to "fit my worldview" -- this is not at all the case. Aside from being unsubstantiated, I value different world views greatly. I always have.
This includes world views that I might find troubling, difficult, or problematic. Yes, there are some world views that hold less value than others (i tend to feel this way about absolute world views, btw -- which might also be why I find your statements such as "it just is!" and "get a grip!" to be condescending) -- but who is the arbiter as to which world views should be upheld and which world views should not?
And it is this that ties back to the abortion argument. There isn't wrong in Alan's world view. But there isn't wrong in your worldview (assuming, women have absolute right to choice). And there isn't wrong in a lot of world views in the middle.
But these world views are in conflict -- and it is only through *respectful* and *clear* communication of these ideas can we come to any sense of other perspectives, understand the points of view, and come to conclusions that would support as many world views as possible when defining the social and legal processes of our society.
At the end of the day, you're either going to choose to communicate respectfully or you are not.
You have been repeatedly disparaging of the amish (regarding their education and capacity), you have made wild claims about me (you would have me admire them! you make them out to be more savvy than a New Yorker!) where there is no evidence to support this, you have claimed victimhood and asserted that I have demonized you, called you names, and so on (again, without providing any evidence), and you have condescended toward me (get a grip! do you even read my posts? do you even read what you write?).
And you refuse to take ownership of any of it. If you own your words, then you would take what I am saying to you seriously.
Now, and finally, I will not speak of this again. If you cannot see my points -- when they have been so clearly laid out multiple times -- then it is obvious to me that you simply lack the capacity.
flowerseverywhere
3-15-12, 7:58am
why does Texas have the most stringent laws in this area yet have an astounding record of Capitol punishment? Playing god?
How can you argue that we need to reduce government interference except in this matter, which is legal? Don't we have far bigger problems?
And lastly, how can we care so much about this issue while a soldier recently went on a rampage in Afghanistan, we recently has a teenager kill classmates in Ohio, and every day you can find a report of some child being murdered or badly abused by its parents.
It doesn't make sense why this issue is so much more important it has led people to say some really nasty stuff to each other
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 10:10am
Flowers why do we care so much about this issue? Because life is precious. People seem to ramble in all directions on this forum rather than stay on topic. Some here think it is ok to kill. That shows why our society and the world is in the pitiful and pathetic state it is in.
Zoe, you really crack me up! In your above post you say I 'insulted' you by stating you didn't read what I wrote..while admitting you DIDN'T READ WHAT I WROTE! Unbelievable! You missed the regressive/repressive thing, and by the way, regressive doesn't mean stupid or backwards, it means rejecting progress. Perhaps a more careful reading of what I wrote will help you find more things you missed.
Again, you keep saying i called them ignorant and backwards. I DID NOT! And I consider this lie you keep telling as a personal attack on me.
Shunning
Shunning, or meidung means expulsion from the Amish community for breaching religious guidelines -- including marrying outside the faith. The practice of shunning is the main reason that the Amish broke away from the Mennonites in 1693. When an individual is subject to meidung, it means they have to leave their friends, family and lives behind. All communication and contact is cut off, even among family members. Shunning is serious, and usually considered a last resort after repeated warnings.
Shunning can be broken down into behaviours and practices that seek to accomplish either or both of two primary goals.
1.To modify the behaviour of a member. This approach seeks to influence, encourage, or coerce normative behaviours from members, and may seek to dissuade, provide disincentives for, or to compel avoidance of certain behaviours. Shunning may include disassociating from a member by other members of the community who are in good standing. It may include more antagonistic psychological behaviours (described below). This approach may be seen as either corrective or punitive (or both) by the group membership or leadership, and may also be intended as a deterrent.
and from your post:
"There are several different kinds of problems -- everything from abuse in families, hiding of people with disabilities, and genetic health problems that are as yet to be solved (though there are several 'english' doctors who are working on that specifically -- one of them formerly amish himself, but desiring to go to medical school, he did, and simply "missed the time" that he could become amish. in deciding to stick with modern medicine as a profession -- he simply 'drifted away' from the amish community. And yet, not fully shunned, he is their go-to physician for his community, and he's managed to find a treatment for three common genetic diseases -- I'll look for the source, it was a local newspaper article in the Lancaster New Era newspaper from about 5-6 years ago)."
See, I wonder why they would even sort of shun him, for wanting to be a modern medical doctor, or for not joining their church. And I'm guessing there are many other respectable career choices for which they can be shunned. Note, I never said they couldn't do these things, or were completely incapable of doing these things, I just said that if you knew you were going to be even a little shunned, that is incredible pressure to not consider these career choices.
In the country at large, 80% or more kids who grew up on the farm don't choose to be farmers. So what's keeping these kids back?
You are young and your kid is young. Maybe you don't realize the incredible influence and pressure a family and community can bring on to a kid. Not many kids would choose to be even a little shunned, or disapproved of strongly by family and community, which probably accounts for the low number that do leave.
I have known people who were forced to drop out of school at 13. These weren't just dumb rocks that just sat on their butts the rest of their lives. They were capable, hard working people, but every one of them wishes they could have continued their education. You seem to think it's easy peasy to simply continue your education on your own. It's not. It's very very difficult, especially when your family thinks you got all the formal education you needed by 13. I certainly admire anyone who does continue, because I know how very hard it is.
Nothing you say is going to convince me that the average Amish parent is encouraging their kid to seek education in computer science, electrical engineering, law, medical technology, physics, evolutionary biology, astronomy, and on and on. It's an exciting world out there, and getting more exciting all the time. Don't tell me these bright, curious, lively teens don't notice. And don't try to convince me that the parents are talking about all these things around the dinner table and encouraging their kids to explore.
•"Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (II Corinthians 6:14)
•"Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord." (II Corinthians 6:17)
Don't forget we aren't talking about some remote tribe somewhere. We are talking about bright, curious American teenagers, smack dab in the middle of modern, progressive, exciting America. Frankly, the way I see this religious sect going forward, they will have to loosen up their restrictions and beliefs about the modern world, or they will go the way of Shakers.
"Now, and finally, I will not speak of this again. If you cannot see my points -- when they have been so clearly laid out multiple times -- then it is obvious to me that you simply lack the capacity."
Right back at ya.
Flowers why do we care so much about this issue? Because life is precious. People seem to ramble in all directions on this forum rather than stay on topic. Some here think it is ok to kill. That shows why our society and the world is in the pitiful and pathetic state it is in.
poetry writer, i"m curious. Mitt Romney said yesterday that as President he would completely de-fund Planned Parenthood. Do you agree with that?
Is there some form of contraception that is 100% effective, and usable without nasty side effects by everyone?
Abstinence. And its already free.
Abstinence. And its already free.
That method seems to suffer a significant failure rate in the real world, ideally though it performs under laboratory conditions.
Gingerella72
3-15-12, 10:46am
Abstinence. And its already free.
Tell that to the girl who is being repeatedly molested/raped by her brother, or father, or uncle, or.....
Tell that to the girl who is being repeatedly molested/raped by her brother, or father, or uncle, or.....
My sister's husband used to rape her, specifically to get her pregnant, when she no longer wished to go along with his sell-babies-for-cash scheme.
That method seems to suffer a significant failure rate in the real world, ideally though it performs under laboratory conditions.
Quite true (and exactly the point).
Tell that to the girl who is being repeatedly molested/raped by her brother, or father, or uncle, or.....
Are most abortions performed on rape/incest victims or on women who decided, for whatever other reason, that they didn't want a baby? Laws are, or at least should be, written to cover the majority of cases. A well thought out law should contain language that allows exceptions in cases outside the norm. A case of rape or incest would, I hope, be an exception. I am far from being an abortion advocate, but do support a woman's right to make such a decision without 'help' from the government. I am not qualified to decide if it is right for someone else and don't believe most of our law makers are either. However, the "oops I'm pregnant" cases that result in abortion turn my stomach because, to me, it is one more example of there being no limits in our disposable society. We allow all personal responsibility to be removed; there are very few consequences for our actions in this society. Most of those pregnancies could be prevented easily and cheaply which is why I support getting birth control into as many hands as we can even if it is a government entity handing it out. And yes, regardless of how practical or desirable it is, the one sure fire way to not get pregnant is to not have sex.
Abstinence. And its already free.
It is - but it seems a bit overkill. There is only one particular scenario that will cause pregnancy. I find it interesting that it so often is presented as "all or nothing".
ApatheticNoMore
3-15-12, 1:23pm
Abstinence. And its already free.
For life? (or at least for a woman until full menopause?) Is that your serious proposal, that all people who don't want children should be abstinent for the entire of their reproductive lives? Ok but don't be surprised if even full sterilizations are more popular than this, if I had thought of it at a younger age I may have gone for full sterilization, it's certainly a worry free life. Unfortunately that's only an easy procedure for a man :( The creator is NOT female I tell you! :)
Flowers why do we care so much about this issue? Because life is precious. People seem to ramble in all directions on this forum rather than stay on topic. Some here think it is ok to kill. That shows why our society and the world is in the pitiful and pathetic state it is in.
Viability. Check it out. You can't kill something that has no life of its own. You can make an argument against late-term abortions where viability is an issue, but most of those are performed on doomed fetuses anyway.
There have been a couple of stories in the news lately about parents who have righteously refused to abort badly damaged fetuses, thereby sentencing their offspring to months, if not years, of painful and ultimately futile medical procedures. I don't see how that is the high ground, but it's a personal decision.
As far as nature--and the big picture--is concerned, life isn't particularly precious. But I'd love to see the energy put into saving innocent lives from war that is currently expended on lost causes like forced birth.
The world is no more pathetic than it's ever been--you could make an argument that it's less so. We've made some progress, after all. When was the last time you heard of someone punished by being boiled in oil or dismembered by galloping horses? And women, finally, have some control of their own lives. That's progress, in my book.
Are most abortions performed on rape/incest victims or on women who decided, for whatever other reason, that they didn't want a baby? Laws are, or at least should be, written to cover the majority of cases. A well thought out law should contain language that allows exceptions in cases outside the norm. A case of rape or incest would, I hope, be an exception. I am far from being an abortion advocate, but do support a woman's right to make such a decision without 'help' from the government. I am not qualified to decide if it is right for someone else and don't believe most of our law makers are either. However, the "oops I'm pregnant" cases that result in abortion turn my stomach because, to me, it is one more example of there being no limits in our disposable society. We allow all personal responsibility to be removed; there are very few consequences for our actions in this society. Most of those pregnancies could be prevented easily and cheaply which is why I support getting birth control into as many hands as we can even if it is a government entity handing it out. And yes, regardless of how practical or desirable it is, the one sure fire way to not get pregnant is to not have sex.
I couldn't agree more about reproductive responsibility. In my curmudgeonly opinion, if you can't emotionally or financially support a child, including providing a stable, safe and loving home, you shouldn't have one. But mine seems to be the minority view these days.
ApatheticNoMore
3-15-12, 1:47pm
As far as nature--and the big picture--is concerned, life isn't particularly precious.
Yes that's *nature*, I often think it would be nice to live in a *society* where it was though. And then I sound like the Pope :). Well I really don't focus much on the abortion issue though. I think we really do live in a society that devalues human life is so many ways though. Take how old people are treated in our society, often devalued, you really can't arrive at those positions if you really value human life ... you can't arrive at much that is the dominent culture in our society from a real valuing of human life IMO.
For life? (or at least for a woman until full menopause?) Is that your serious proposal, that all people who don't want children should be abstinent for the entire of their reproductive lives? Ok but don't be surprised if even full sterilizations are more popular than this, if I had thought of it at a younger age I may have gone for full sterilization, it's certainly a worry free life. Unfortunately that's only an easy procedure for a man :( The creator is NOT female I tell you! :)
+1
I just read somewhere that sterilization is particularly popular with Catholics, maybe because you only have to apologize once.
I would argue that tubal ligation is not such a big deal; it has to be a lot less painful than a Brazilian wax job.:0!
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 2:30pm
poetry writer, i"m curious. Mitt Romney said yesterday that as President he would completely de-fund Planned Parenthood. Do you agree with that?
I wouldnt vote for Romney for dogcatcher and no I do not agree with that.
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 2:32pm
Tell that to the girl who is being repeatedly molested/raped by her brother, or father, or uncle, or.....
The problem with your comment is.....we are talking about two different issues. The topic was not rape, or molestation.
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 2:38pm
Convos on this forum dissolve into nothing most of the time because the topic goes in a thousand directions. The fact that some here think killing is fine and life has no value shows why our society and world is in the condition it is. Life has no meaning to those who think like that. It has no value. A baby is as important as a pig, to them. Nothing matters. And it shows when we pick up the paper or turn on the news......welcome to the world where anything goes.
loosechickens
3-15-12, 3:14pm
Originally Posted by peggy
poetry writer, i"m curious. Mitt Romney said yesterday that as President he would completely de-fund Planned Parenthood. Do you agree with that?
I wouldnt vote for Romney for dogcatcher and no I do not agree with that. (poetry_writer)
----------------------------------------------------------
boy, it looks like you'll probably find yourself between a rock and a hard place, poetry_writer.......I can't imagine that you are a fan of President Obama, and on the other side, it's likely to be a choice between Mitt Romney and Santorum......Romney is far more likely to be the nominee, making you have effectively no choice at all, because if you wouldn't vote for Romney for dogcatcher, surely you wouldn't be willing to vote for him as President of the United States.
And, if by some chance, Rick Santorum gets the nomination, and is able to do what HE wants to do, which is to be against contraception altogether out of fear of contraception leading to "improper sexual behavior", HIS policies will be almost SURE to end up in massive numbers of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and way MORE abortions........and, of course, he is MORE than willing to see Planned Parenthood defunded completely.
really comes down to retreating into a cave somewhere, for you, I guess....... no wonder you feel so hopeless. ;-)
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 3:34pm
Originally Posted by peggy
poetry writer, i"m curious. Mitt Romney said yesterday that as President he would completely de-fund Planned Parenthood. Do you agree with that?
I wouldnt vote for Romney for dogcatcher and no I do not agree with that. (poetry_writer)
----------------------------------------------------------
boy, it looks like you'll probably find yourself between a rock and a hard place, poetry_writer.......I can't imagine that you are a fan of President Obama, and on the other side, it's likely to be a choice between Mitt Romney and Santorum......Romney is far more likely to be the nominee, making you have effectively no choice at all, because if you wouldn't vote for Romney for dogcatcher, surely you wouldn't be willing to vote for him as President of the United States.
And, if by some chance, Rick Santorum gets the nomination, and is able to do what HE wants to do, which is to be against contraception altogether out of fear of contraception leading to "improper sexual behavior", HIS policies will be almost SURE to end up in massive numbers of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and way MORE abortions........and, of course, he is MORE than willing to see Planned Parenthood defunded completely.
really comes down to retreating into a cave somewhere, for you, I guess....... no wonder you feel so hopeless. ;-)
You havent changed a bit......:o)
ApatheticNoMore
3-15-12, 4:18pm
Convos on this forum dissolve into nothing most of the time because the topic goes in a thousand directions. The fact that some here think killing is fine and life has no value shows why our society and world is in the condition it is. Life has no meaning to those who think like that. It has no value. A baby is as important as a pig, to them. Nothing matters. And it shows when we pick up the paper or turn on the news......welcome to the world where anything goes.
Was there ever a golden age when the world wasn't in the condition it is, when things mattered, and when it wasn't a world where anything goes? When? The U.S. in the 50s maybe (after our government had just dropped the bomb on Japan - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, if indescriminate wiping out of whole cities is not "killing is fine and human life has no value" what is?). Or maybe the golden age was the middle ages? It seems to me in the past that a lot of mothers died in childbirth though and that in the old days the life of the mother was a very real issue. Or maybe it's just western culture that is debased and other cultures have existed where human life has mattered and we should emulate them? Ok, care to provide examples? Or maybe there hasn't been a golden age, not since Eve ate the apple, and it's been east of eden ever since - well .... at least that position is consistent :). Maybe the golden age exists only in the future when human beings have evolved (even if just by cultural evolution) to be much more compasionate, loving, aware and sensitive beings than they are now. It starts with what? Ok ... maybe .... being more careful about birth control so less babies are aborted, then maybe being sympathetic to people dying in other countries due to our wars, then maybe sympathizing with a people that is losing the island they have always lived on due to global warming, then maybe respecting old people and not devaluing them because they are old (I'm talking about basic respect not radical life extension at all costs here). Well .... I respect idealism so ... ok, have at it :). But I don't believe there has ever been a golden age, or that all evils in the world now are due to abortion.
The fact that some here think killing is fine and life has no value ...
I think killing is acceptable, even necessary, in some circumstances.
That position does not come from a belief that "life has no value", but rather the opposite.
I couldn't agree more about reproductive responsibility. In my curmudgeonly opinion, if you can't emotionally or financially support a child, including providing a stable, safe and loving home, you shouldn't have one. But mine seems to be the minority view these days.
Ditto - and to Gregg too. I feel that birth control can, and should, be made more readily availble and affordable to all - and would especially love to see it as a covered service of medical insurance plans. BUT, if you can't afford it, or can't readily obtain it (and I'm talking about ALL types of contraceptives - including making the boys "suit up"), then you shouldn't have sex UNTIL you can obtain contraceptives. That's justr a matter of personal responsibilty to avoid becoming preggers. Same with avoiding STD's - if I get AIDS or some other STD because I didn't follow safe sex practices, I am the one who is responsible for that, no one else. And no one is saying abstain for life, just be personally responsible for your actions and their outcomes. With the myriad of birth control choices out there - many VERY inexpensive ones that can be used in tandem to greatly increase effectivness - no one should ever need an abortion except for in dire circumstances (rape, incest, severe fetal problems to child or mother). Abortions shouldn't be used as a means of casual day to day birth control IMHO.
Originally Posted by poetry_writer:
The fact that some here think killing is fine and life has no value ...
That's your entirely subjective interpretation, and I haven't seen a jot or tittle of evidence that it's the truth.
Gingerella72
3-15-12, 5:08pm
The problem with your comment is.....we are talking about two different issues. The topic was not rape, or molestation.
But the topic *is* about whether abortion is "ok" in some instances or not and a girl getting pregnant because she is raped once (or repeatedly raped as in the case of incest) certainly has to be considered. And the ultra conservatives who want control over the power to make laws concerning abortion and contraception, etc don't see a problem with not having an exception to the rule in the case of pregnancy as a result of rape, and that absolutely turns my stomach.
Abstinence-only education doesn't take into consideration that the girl may not have ANY choice in the matter.
Like Gregg, I agree that if woman in a consensual relationship gets pregnant from lack of contraceptive use, an "oops, I'm pregnant" scenario, abortion would be my last advice to give to her; she danced, and she can pay the fiddler by having the child and giving up for adoption. But in the case of pregnancy-by-rape, there has to be a way to spare that girl the trauma of carrying the rapist's child to term, every day being a constant reminder of was done to her and taken away from her. It is for that reason that I am pro-choice.
Ditto - and to Gregg too. I feel that birth control can, and should, be made more readily availble and affordable to all - and would especially love to see it as a covered service of medical insurance plans. BUT, if you can't afford it, or can't readily obtain it (and I'm talking about ALL types of contraceptives - including making the boys "suit up"), then you shouldn't have sex UNTIL you can obtain contraceptives. That's justr a matter of personal responsibilty to avoid becoming preggers. Same with avoiding STD's - if I get AIDS or some other STD because I didn't follow safe sex practices, I am the one who is responsible for that, no one else. And no one is saying abstain for life, just be personally responsible for your actions and their outcomes. With the myriad of birth control choices out there - many VERY inexpensive ones that can be used in tandem to greatly increase effectivness - no one should ever need an abortion except for in dire circumstances (rape, incest, severe fetal problems to child or mother). Abortions shouldn't be used as a means of casual day to day birth control IMHO.
I think some are advocating for life-long abstention. If you're not married or don't want to reproduce, Rick Santorum and many others think you should just "put an aspirin between your knees."
poetry_writer
3-15-12, 5:14pm
I think killing is acceptable, even necessary, in some circumstances.
That position does not come from a belief that "life has no value", but rather the opposite.
then i leave you to yourself.
then i leave you to yourself.
No, you leave me to the mainstream of our legal tradition, and our current laws.
For instance, in my state, one set of examples of acceptable circumstances is in RCW 9A.16.050:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050
Most states have similar laws.
I agree that if woman in a consensual relationship gets pregnant from lack of contraceptive use, an "oops, I'm pregnant" scenario, abortion would be my last advice to give to her; she danced, and she can pay the fiddler by having the child and giving up for adoption.
"They" can pay the fiddler IMHO. I think that if we make men more responsible and bear a greater burden for unplanned pregnancies, then maybe they would be more careful when it comes to their sexual activity. And I'm not just talking about a life long financial burden to provide for a child, I'm talking physical caregiving responsibilty too. I think that would go a long way prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I think some are advocating for life-long abstention. If you're not married or don't want to reproduce, Rick Santorum and many others think you should just "put an aspirin between your knees."
And if us girls don't get to play, then the boys don't either :-)!! An equal opportunity asprin for all!! That'll give the guys at the top an incentive to make contraceptiives available to all :-)!
Goodness, I hardly know where to begin.
Ok, three elements. :)
1. Disparaging the Amish
A. regression
I'm not going to debate the definition. There are several definitions online, and all of them include the word "backwards" in them in either the direct definitions OR in the synonyms lists. You can verify this or not.
That being said, I have already accepted your reframe here, so there's no need to discuss it further.
B. 8th grade
In this last post, I can see that you have attempted to make a general statement, not a specific one.
I still believe that attaching it to the amish is incorrect and inaccurate, and I find the statement that "they are only good for" to be disparaging to anyone (including your friend).
But, based on the information regarding your friend, and the emotive aspect of "difficulty" -- I will accept this as an appropriate reframe and that you had not intended that meaning.
It is a false comparison, but nevertheless, I will take it to a general meaning as opposed to a specific one (applying to the amish).
Relative difficulty, how people do and do not encourage their children (in general) and so on is another topic altogether, and your feelings on it (or mine) are not relevant to this aspect of the discussion.
2. Condescending statements towards me
A. Language vs Feeling
There is a difference between pointing out an issue of language and having a feeling. Other than one comment thus far, I have not felt offended by your statements. Instead, I felt that the language was condescending towards me.
B. Consideration
In essence, I am asking you to consider me (or anyone) when you are responding or writing.
I find it condescending when a person
1. repeatedly demands that i quote them and explain my position, and responds with "did not!" but doesn't reframe or contextualize or apologize (if needed, as I did, btw, for mis-reading)
I grant that you have effectively reframed in regards to the amish. But, you have not dealt with the statements which I have found condescending towards me. So, we are only half way there.
2. repeatedly asserts victimhood, but refuses to provide evidence of the accusations of name-calling, demonizing, etc;
3. asserts that a person doesn't know what they are reading or writing -- and in the first one, crows about it after the person has explained, not that she has not-read, but that she must have mis-read and why and then asserts that it is a "crack up!"
As i stated in my prior post, I must have misread, and I apologized for misreading. Now you crow that it is evidence for not-reading, when this is not the case.
As I stated before, though I admit this current post has far better spacing, I have found your statements very difficult to parse out because multiple ideas that are often different in nature are jumbled together into the same paragraphs.
Many of your statements (like mine) are quite long, and when reading through them, I can loose my place, go back to see if you have written of that idea before, see where it connects to other ideas in the future.
I also get interrupted by phone calls, neighbors, 3yr olds, work, and so on when reading.
And finally, regressive and repressive are very closely spelled, so my mind may still read 'regress' instead of 'repress' where this statement was made.
As yet, I haven't had the time to read every post to find where this recant was, even, but -- benefit of the doubt, I trust that you did state so.
Why not provide the same consideration? That I am -- in fact -- reading your posts, responding as clearly and effectively as possible? Benefit of the doubt that I am reading your posts? that it is possible for a person to make a mistake in their reading, or to have missed something?
And, I did apologize for it. Who crows when someone apologizes? How is that not condescending?
4. asserts that the individual needs to "get a grip" and "take a breath" -- which asserts that the individual doesn't have a grasp on reality and/or is too emotional to see clearly and logically;
5. asserts that the person is simply "too young" to understand the pressures that a parent can bring (presuming to know the person's own life experience in this regard);
This is a hot-button issue for me, and I am offended (the one statement that truly causes an emotional response in me).
Why is this? Well, my history.
At 19, I knew what I wanted to do. Quit uni, go to an ashram, get certified to do yoga and massage, return to my uni town and support myself doing yoga/massage, and then get a degree in business as the community college (also considered living at home to do this). I was informed "absolutely not" and actively discouraged.
At 22, I wanted to go to an ashram and get certified to teach yoga and do massage. I'd saved up my own money to pay and been accepted. My family said "absolutely not! You'll hate it eventually! you'll get bored!" When I would speka about wanting to run a business, they would say "you'll never make it! you are too lazy to succeed! You need to be realistic!"
I went to law school for my family. I did well. I hated the practice of the law. I gained $125,000 in debt. I still owe $80,000 of it. I graduated in 2002. I am still paying it -- I'm not trying to beg out of it. But yes, parental pressure lead me to that.
In my second year of law school, my best friend died. The idea of being a lawyer for "25 or so years until you retire and can become a yoga teacher" -- which is what my parents saw for me as a good and valuable life path -- felt terrible.
I had already been apprenticing with my teachers for years, teaching part time for years, with this idea that I would 'some day, when I'd earned it' be able to do what I wanted to do full time. But at that moment -- it was carpe diem. My friend was 24 years old when she passed. I saw that it could have been me. It could have been my husband's friend -- who died on Monday at age 40. Did he live his dreams? DId he do what he loved in the past 20 years when he could have chosen?
I talked to my parents about leaving law school, getting a part-time job, and doing my yoga thing, gearing up to run a business. Can you guess what they said? The pressure that they put on me?
I finished law school. But by then, I'd decided I'd have to accept their disapproval, their criticism. Criticism I *still* receive 13 years later, living in another country, and successfully running my business.
And it doesn't stop there. I'm no longer catholic. I don't raise my son properly. My house is too small, my lifestyle "poor" and so on.
Do they love me? Yes. Do they miss me? Yes. Are they generous and loving towards me? Yes.
Do they approve? no. Do they encourage? In their way, but not absolutely. Do they discourage? I've lived here two years. I've skyped pretty much every week. Both my husband and I hear -- every week -- when are you coming home? when are you going to move back? when will you give up?
and of course "why can't you do that stuff here?"
No, you are absolutely right. I am too young to know about or have experienced any of this, no?
It's condescending, it's offensive for you to even assert that I am too young to understand. It is the young who understand.
And I understand it in regards to my son, too -- trust me. I see how he trusts us implicitly, how much he wants to please us and to be approved. Do you know how hard I work on that? How much I strive to honor him, while also applying gentle (non physical, non punishment/reward) discipline so that he can learn how to walk in the world with manners and with confidence?
You have completely disregarded my own human experience -- without even knowing what that is, based on how old you THINK i am.
6. using absolutisms in her communication such that any counter argument is unreasonable (it just is! this is reality!);
7. asserting that the individual has a romantic view as compared to one's own 'realistic' view even though that realistic view has very little supporting evidence (amish.net, some bible verses, a quoted statement on shunning -- none of which counter any evidence provided, nor particularly bolster one's own argument);
8. attributing positions to the other person that have no evidence to support that claim (you want me to admire them; you want me to ascribe to your worldview and write accordingly; that my assertion is that it is "easy peasy" to transition cultures; trying to convince you that amish parents are "encouraging" in whatever careers; etc).
I actually haven't made any of these statements that you claim of me. I never asserted that it would be "easy" for an Amish teen to get the education that she wants, or to leave her community -- and I know this because it is based in my own experience.
And, comparatively, I do and did have it much easier than an Amish kid.
My only point is that it is *possible* and I gave evidence of this possibility, which you seem to completely disregard. And, you disregard me in the process (with this last statement about how I am young and don't understand).
3. Conclusion
The reality is this: I want to communicate with people -- that includes you.
But I find it incredibly frustrating to communicate with people who condescend towards me.
So, you can either make amends OR I can simply go forth and ignore you from here on out. It's probably long past due that I practiced the latter, but at the end of the day, I like to give people a lot of chances to amend.
But in the case of pregnancy-by-rape, there has to be a way to spare that girl the trauma of carrying the rapist's child to term, every day being a constant reminder of was done to her and taken away from her.
A child conceived of rape or incest is not complicit in the sins of its father. It is innocent, just as a child conceived of consensual intercourse. In my mind, it has the same rights and interests.
So, I don't see a reasonable moral foundation for carving out a special case for abortion in cases of rape or incest, for treating the two types of fetuses/babies differently. In some ways, I think that direction is a distraction, to assist people in avoiding facing the moral issue at hand: you are killing.
But the topic *is* about whether abortion is "ok" in some instances or not and a girl getting pregnant because she is raped once (or repeatedly raped as in the case of incest) certainly has to be considered. And the ultra conservatives who want control over the power to make laws concerning abortion and contraception, etc don't see a problem with not having an exception to the rule in the case of pregnancy as a result of rape, and that absolutely turns my stomach.
Abstinence-only education doesn't take into consideration that the girl may not have ANY choice in the matter.
Like Gregg, I agree that if woman in a consensual relationship gets pregnant from lack of contraceptive use, an "oops, I'm pregnant" scenario, abortion would be my last advice to give to her; she danced, and she can pay the fiddler by having the child and giving up for adoption. But in the case of pregnancy-by-rape, there has to be a way to spare that girl the trauma of carrying the rapist's child to term, every day being a constant reminder of was done to her and taken away from her. It is for that reason that I am pro-choice.
Bad enough some kids are told they were an accident - I can only imagine growing up knowing your existence was just a punishment ("she danced, and she can pay the fiddler") for your mother getting pregnant.
I would counter your argument by saying most of the women who would uncaringly get pregnant and then use abortion as birth control are often the ones who should least have a child.
A child conceived of rape or incest is not complicit in the sins of its father. It is innocent, just as a child conceived of consensual intercourse. In my mind, it has the same rights and interests.
So, I don't see a reasonable moral foundation for carving out a special case for abortion in cases of rape or incest, for treating the two types of fetuses/babies differently. In some ways, I think that direction is a distraction, to assist people in avoiding facing the moral issue at hand: you are killing.
In the case of rape or incest, you have two innocent parties with potentially competing interests. In the case of a normal pregnancy, you have one innocent party. That's the distinction in my mind. To clarify the term innocent, I mean didn't have a choice in the events that led to the situation.
The further along in the pregnancy, the more it becomes clear to me that the child's interest outweigh that of the mother in any case.
It's IS ludicrous that no one speaks of the other lifeform, for lack of a better term, that looses in the abortion deal. There is a baby/zygote/mass of human cells/a life or whatever term you want to use, that is wiped out.
It just seems dishonest to me, and tone deaf. But you really cannot expect balance here on this site, now you know better.;)
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?"
For me, it looks like this.
For whatever odd reason (likely a catholic upbringing) I believe that life begins at conception. But consciousness seems to be a developing process (buddhist influence, i guess), and brain development is important (a baby's brain grows astronomically in utero, and in the last month, gains a great deal of size in particular, which is part of what makes prematurity so 'scary' -- not to mention other organ development). I would say that, for whatever reason, i believe that "personhood" is housed n the brain, and that a brain needn't be 200% healthy to create a vibrant person. :)
From there, I weigh the moral situation around viability. You might say that this is largely because of Thomas Acquinas, as well as my own experience with a miscarriage (6 weeks). Viability is important to me, and prior to that, the morality shifts (for me).
To be sure, after having my son, I have become far less "cavalier" about abortion -- not that I was ever particularly "cavalier" before.
And then lets talk about this ultrasound business.
Perhaps I am unusual.
I know what an infant looks like at every stage of gestation. I have known this since I was very young. The images of a 12 wk old baby are rather ubiquitous in our culture -- because of those Time Magazine photos published in the 1970s and onwards. THe ultrasound doesn't even give that clear of a picture.
I seem to think -- perhaps wrongly assume -- that people understand what a zygote, embryo and fetus look like because of these photos. Because of sex education. Because of the signs that pro-life protestors carry. Because of information available on the internet.
I seem to think -- and perhaps wrongly assume -- that a woman is fully aware that she is carrying a baby in some form (i.e., form being zygote, embryo, fetus), and that being aware of her circumstances and capacities, would be able to make a decision based on that circumstance.
I do not believe that she is ignorant of the person growing within her, or what they look like (in general, not specific).
I fail to see how an ultrasound would convince her otherwise (it wouldn't me, once the decision is made, this would only serve to torment me more, rather than actually convince me against it -- because I would have already weighed everything on measure, and come to that conclusion -- it would not be a flight of fancy, and I assume, perhaps wrongly, that is the case for other women), and in particular, how a particularly invasive one would.
But talking about these things academically does not mean that one is entirely disregarding the life within, the value of life inherently, or not comprehending the construct of killing.
And to that, as someone brought it up, the reality is that killing has many 'amoral' functions. I consider, for example, killing for food to be appropriate. It might also be appropriate in the cases of just war. Self defense and defense of other are also considered valid reasons to kill (a human), and so here we are opening whether or not *this* killing is morally appropriate.
The law has asserted (which means our community has decided) that when the state attaches personhood to the child -- usually based on viability -- then the legal implications attach.
Which would indicate that, morally speaking, we are following Acquinas.
(and bae, if you can grow tomatoes, I think you are a wizard! :D)
On birth control:
I'm an advocate for using fertility awareness method (FAM) and barrier methods. But, that combination fails a lot of people on account of their inability to stick with it. LOL
Second to this, I recommend sterilization.
Why? Because these are less likely to mess with the endocrine system and lead to better health overall and in the long term.
But, I do see good reason to use the pill and related chemical forms -- for both medicinal purposes and for birth control purposes.
And I have no problem with my insurance paying for that, if it pays for drugs for all of my other friend's preventable what nots (such as poor eating habits that lead to indigestion that leads to prescription medications).
With regards to abortion, I consider it an absolute last resort, best used only when medically necessary, which may include having an abortion due to rape/incest if the pregnancy will further harm the mother psychologically in the process (which is the primary argument along this, not so much the argument that the child is innocent and the mother is innocent and so on).
But, I also know that people see things differently, and I"m happy with Roe and Casey -- how they allow for freedom of choice, while also balancing the needs of the children (who are at some point, citizens of the state with rights and protections).
Convos on this forum dissolve into nothing most of the time because the topic goes in a thousand directions. The fact that some here think killing is fine and life has no value shows why our society and world is in the condition it is. Life has no meaning to those who think like that. It has no value. A baby is as important as a pig, to them. Nothing matters. And it shows when we pick up the paper or turn on the news......welcome to the world where anything goes.
No one yet has stated "life has no value." It is absurd to assert so.
Likewise, I do not see "this is why our world is the way it is. . ." I see a pretty decent world overall, with lots of good people living happy lives, doing their best, and doing good for each other. Is that the world that you mean?
"They" can pay the fiddler IMHO. I think that if we make men more responsible and bear a greater burden for unplanned pregnancies, then maybe they would be more careful when it comes to their sexual activity. And I'm not just talking about a life long financial burden to provide for a child, I'm talking physical caregiving responsibilty too. I think that would go a long way prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Absolutely! I might question the wisdom of automatically having both parents involved with caregiving as a blanket statement, but could not agree more that male responsibility should extend well beyond the current sperm donor status. It would not be hard to argue that the concept is one of the major stumbling blocks in our current society. Again, no sense of personal responsibility and no consequences for countless men has, IMO, played a major roll in getting us to where we are today.
And if us girls don't get to play, then the boys don't either :-)!! An equal opportunity asprin for all!! That'll give the guys at the top an incentive to make contraceptiives available to all :-)!
The abstinence thing was just a way to get conversation going because it will never happen on a large scale and who would want to be part of that anyway? But still you have a point. Making sure both people are protected in some way reduces the risk of pregnancy well beyond what simply having one covered does. Like it or not the practical truth is that the responsibility to check is probably best left in female hands most of the time. You girls are in control, the rest of us are just beggars. If single women, and even married women where appropriate, demand condom use in conjunction with your preferred contraceptive measure unwanted pregnancies AND STD infection rates would drop to almost nothing. It will probably take a generation or more for the guys to catch on and consider that the new normal. Be patient with us and it could work. ;) Question is, since most kids already have a basic education in contraception, how do we get the usage up to that level? (Hint: I bet the answer has something to do with more education and easier access.)
I might question the wisdom of automatically having both parents involved with caregiving as a blanket statement
Oh honey... I'm wasn't thinking of "sharing" custody, I was thinking the guy gets full custody for life ;-)! Knowing that they may become a full time single parent for 18 years with minimal financial support or caregiving help from their sex partner during that time (what generally happens to females) might just cause a few men to pause before having unprotected sex! Especially with someone they aren't in a committed long term relationship with.
[/QUOTE] Be patient with us and it could work. ;) [/QUOTE]
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 :-)!
"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 :-)! "
It's all about control, shaming, and punishment. Of the woman. Doonesbury has it all going on lately:http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/political-pictures-doonesbury-stirs-abortion-controversy1.jpg
And it's lovely if men want to assume some responsibility for birth control, but I always took complete and final responsibility for my fertility, and I would never trust anyone else to care as much as I did about preventing a pregnancy.
flowerseverywhere
3-15-12, 7:23pm
A narrow definition of killing I just don't get. It's curious that while death penalties are carried out and wars rage on access to abortion (not saying anyone has to have one) is such a hot issue.
I hate the ugly wars we are involved in and there have been so many civilians killed and displaced. We have numerous cases of wrongful death penalties-a curious delineation between what type of human behavior we find good and acceptable
With regards to abortion, I consider it an absolute last resort, best used only when medically necessary, which may include having an abortion due to rape/incest if the pregnancy will further harm the mother psychologically in the process (which is the primary argument along this, not so much the argument that the child is innocent and the mother is innocent and so on).
Indeed. But once you open that door, and conclude that the mother may have competing interests that outweigh the interests of the child, then you should proceed to look at the whole range of impacts to the mother, and then it's not so black-and-white :-)
[QUOTE=JaneV2.0;72534
And it's lovely if men want to assume some responsibility for birth control, but I always took complete and final responsibility for my fertility, and I would never trust anyone else to care as much as I did about preventing a pregnancy.[/QUOTE]
True - but I'm of the equal responsibilty clan so would be insistent that they also practice birth control if needed. I wasn't able to have kids myself so it was never an issue, but if I had to use birth control that I wasn't 100% sure were 100% effective 100% of the time, I'd require the use of condoms also. If he wasn't willing, then I wouldn't have sex - and neither would he - at least not with me :-)!
read my post on the Family Board for yet another take on why people (guys) should use birth control unless they want to have a child in their life - possibly full time.
read my post on the Family Board for yet another take on why people (guys) should use birth control unless they want to have a child in their life - possibly full time.
Very true. You'd think any man with any sense at all would refrain from possibly-productive intercourse unless he *knew* he was protected. Child support for those one-night-stands can get pretty pricey over the decades...
Indeed. But once you open that door, and conclude that the mother may have competing interests that outweigh the interests of the child, then you should proceed to look at the whole range of impacts to the mother, and then it's not so black-and-white :-)
Precisely so.
And what makes it even more complex -- which is what makes it difficult under law -- is that there's no one agreement on how this aligns, and so the law has to be broad enough to protect the interests of both parties!
Truly, a very complex issue indeed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.