Political & Elections

longprime · Guru

What your college kids think about their future

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I'd be interested to know where you can get gov subsidized abortions as well.

And fwiw, my "line" is the first trimester (give or take) except in the case of life of the mother, incest, rape, abuse, or life-threatening fetal deformities.

There are no women who decide in the 8th month that they want an abortion*. You don't carry a fetus for that long and simply decide "nah".

*If you could find evidence to the contrary, I would legitimately love to read it. No sarcasm.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Sunday 25th of November 2012 02:12:39 PM

catahoula · Guru

Abortion truly is the third rail. Usually reasonable people, of whom you might think you could predict what their stance might be on the issue, often surprise you.

The odd thing is: with government money, usually a tremendous amount of government oversight is both expected and tolerated. Why do women who expect any government assistance for an abortion also expect it to be a unique relationship, with no strings or oversight? To the degree that they'll pick someone for a job that... admit it... involves much that's arguably more important to their well being?

winchester · Guru

busdriver

thank you.

romani,

The bottom line for me is that the decision needs to rest with the individuals involved, not the federal government or some politician.

I agree in principle. The less government intervention into our personal decisions the better.

But....

Does that mean legal abortions in the ninth month?

Or the eighth?

Seventh?

Where's the line?

Which gets to my earlier point about the overriding sentiment of the culture - in other words, the culture itself - being the path of least resistance, the behavioral autopilot, upon which many decisions are based. It's too loose right now. To lax. People are too unaccountable.

It has to do with the concept of social capital, one explanation of which is "'the goodwill available to individuals or groups. Its source lies in the structure and content of the actor's social relations. Its effects flow from the information, influence, and solidarity it makes available to the actor' (Adler and Kwon 2002, p. 23). Dekker and Uslaner (2001) posited that social capital is fundamentally about how people interact with each other." ( http://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/definition.html)

The concept of social capital is also described in the book "The Social Animal" by David Brooks, and in the Jonathan Haidt book I always recommend.

The more a culture embraces the attitude of anything goes (provided one does not directly injure another individual) the more it tends to undermine and erode social capital. In a nutshell, that's what the policies of liberalism and entitlement do, and have done. Conservatism tends to protect social capital.

Here's a pretty good summary:

In his 2006 book The Happiness Hypothesis, Haidt argues that humans have evolved to live like bees in a hive—in tight, cooperative groups. Haidt has found that many people, when asked to remember the happiest time in their life, will refer to an intense, hivelike group experience such as military service, a band or just a time when they had a close group of friends. “During the Enlightenment, we busted out of the hive and created modern, independent ways of living,” Haidt says. “Now we fly around asking, ‘Why am I not satisfied?’”

Part of the reason behind our dissatisfaction is that too much freedom isn’t always good for us, Haidt contends. When faced with limitless choices, we don’t always choose wisely. Freedom also deprives us of moral order, the ability to be part of a group of people who “cooperate, sanction, punish and criticize each other,” Haidt says.

If that doesn’t sound exactly like a blueprint for paradise to you, consider this fact: survey research (reviewed by sociologist Arthur Brooks) shows that the self-reported happiest people in the United States are Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians. These two groups live in cohesive communities grounded on what they perceive to be an objective moral order. The unhappiest? Liberal atheists, who don’t tend to believe in objective moral order. Haidt suggests that “when people feel that anything is permitted, it’s a recipe for existential emptiness, for anomie.”

Haidt has lots of empirically supported practical advice for a happier life: Exercise, reduce daily hassles and nurture your relationships. “Happiness comes from between,” he says. “It comes from getting the right relationship between yourself and others, yourself and your work, yourself and something larger than yourself.”

http://uvamagazine.org/index.php/features/article/in_pursuit_of_happiness/

What we need to do as a culture is find a way to balance the protection of rights with the maintenance of social capital. That exact thing, that balance, is what conservatism is all about. In a more balanced world abortion would be less of an issue because the attitude toward it would less cavalier, less indifferent, and there would be fewer instances of it. Liberalism, on the other hand, in the name of "fairness" and "equality" (of the type in John Lennon's "Imagine") tends to deprive us of moral order, which in turn, sadly, tends to be "a recipe for existential emptiness, for anomie," the destruction of "the between," and a perfect environment for abortion on demand no matter what.

-- Edited by winchester on Friday 23rd of November 2012 01:03:14 PM

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Sorry, I've only been able to skim these responses (Thanksgiving coma). To me, it is a very personal issue. As a rape survivor, I obviously come at this from a different light than some. And as someone who has never been pregnant, I can obviously never know the pain of miscarriage or the thrill or terror of learning I'm pregnant.

I also know vaguely what it's like to raise a child with genetic abnormalities. I know how difficult those lives can be, especially if you don't have a ton of money. Is it fair to the child to have him/her be born knowing that he/she is going to face an extremely difficult life? What if it's something worse than a typical chromosomal abnormality? What if it's an excruciating death sentence like Tay-Sachs?

The bottom line for me is that the decision needs to rest with the individuals involved, not the federal government or some politician. THEY will not pay for the child- the mother (or tax payers) will. THEY will not be taking care of every special need for that child for life. Therefore, THEY should not be making the decision.

Btw, I don't think I could ever personally get an abortion.

busdriver11 · Guru

I think many men do have to agonize over these decisions, and these tragedies. In a different way than a woman, and though we women can imagine how difficult it would be, it is impossible to understand completely what the other person is going through. For example, it would be heartbreaking if one's wife or girlfriend decided to have an abortion against the man's wishes. I don't know how you get past that, as a couple, and if the man wanted the baby very much, that would be terrible. I thank God I have never had to deal with these kind of issues.

winchester · Guru

You are asolutely correct, of course. No one can argue with any of that. I totally agree with all of it. Who wouldn't? It is inarguable.

The man's job is to be there for the woman; to be supportive and loving and nurturing; to be a caretaker; to be a true partner in every way possible.

But none of that makes his experience and feelings and emotions any less real or any less valid or any less important or any less deeply felt. It's his child too. Is he not also heartbroken? Has his world also not changed forever?

If you have always been a woman you have not walked those shoes as a man. The dismissive, cavalier, almost throw away attitude - shutting him out with comments like "the good news is that men will never have to agonize" - that so many people have toward the man in the picture is insensitive and heartless.

busdriver11 · Guru

If you have always been a man, you have not walked those shoes as a woman.

You can only know, in a philosophical way, how it actually feels to have a miscarriage. To have a life inside of you, the hormones and emotions that go throughout your body, that are with you every second of the day....and then you lose the baby, the grief, the loss, is far different than someone who did not physically experience it, even if that loss was their own child. You absolutely cannot feel the same way if you are not the one carrying the child. It is impossible, unless you have been a woman. And a woman who has experienced, not imagined it. I would expect that it would be the same deal with a woman facing a choice about an abortion. Those who have not been in that situation can only philosophize and guess. You can say how insulting and unfair this idea is, but the reality is quite different.

I had all sorts of ideas about these things...until I actually experienced pregnancy and miscarriage myself. It is purely philosophical until you go through it yourself, and that's pretty much all there is. It's not that nobody can weigh in on a decision or have an opinion, but the truth is that the final decision about carrying a child should be the one whose mind and body has to endure it. It is not just a theoretical, moral and philosophical decision, it is very much an emotional, life changing one.

winchester · Guru

if you haven't walked a mile in those shoes of a mom in a crisis pregancy, it's much, much more difficult to understand that decision to carry a child to term.

Much more difficult, yes. You're moderating your original statment. You're making it less black and white. And it's way different from "the good news is that men will never have to agonize." You're not so cavalier and holier than thou toward men. That's good.

You said you thought I was male, but if you're wrong about that then you apologize. What does that mean? How does that work? How does my sex influence your reaction to my ideas? Don't they stand or fail on their own?

How do you know I have not walked in those shoes, or similar ones? How do you know my views are not precisely because I HAVE walked in those shoes, and i know EXACTLY how agonizing such decisions can be, and how they can haunt a person for the rest of their lives?

With that said, the "walk a mile in those shoes" argument goes only so far.

By that logic then nobody would ever be able weigh in on any decision by anybody else, because nobody can ever walk in anybody else's shoes.
If you’re facing bankruptcy than you woudn't want a financial advisor who has never been bankrupt.

By that logic then if you’re facing cancer then it is "much more difficult" for a doctor who has never had it to understand it.

And it is much more difficult for a bankruptcy lawyer who has never been bankrupt to understand it.

Sound ridiculous? That's my point. The "walk a mile" argument is weak. Really, it's just a cliché that is thrown out to shut down debate and end an argument.

My pont is not about legislating or dictating. My point is to hold up a mirror to society and the kinds of arguments that are made and show the fallacies and the false assumptions they are built on.

Life is about the things that are larger than life. It is about connections among human beings. It is about being part of something that is larger than yourself. It is about humanity: the concept of being human toward one another. It is about the fact that some things are true even if they cannot be proved, and it is about the fact that just because something can be proved does not mean it is true.

But these are things society and culture seems to be forgetting. Everything is so focused on “science” and “reason,” and data and “facts” that can be “proved,” that people, including conceived but not yet born, are reduced to objects. If we had a little more respect for humans as humans rather than as objects or facts whose existence can be proved or disproved with science then we might not be in quite the pickle we are in.

The way things are now, if we can’t “prove” that life has begun then it hasn’t, and the “mass of cells” that is about to become a life is disposable, like an empty milk carton. It’s just an object that we “own” and can do with as we please with a clear conscience, even throw it away as if it were a weed if we feel like it.

It is a dehumanizing, degrading, demeaning, insulting, way to look at ourselves.

Imagine if things weren’t that way. Imagine if our first thoughts were about respect for life, reverence for it, rather than for rationalizing ways to snuff it out before it even has a chance. What if society’s first instinct was in favor of the sanctity of life rather than in favor the concept that the mass of cells is little more than a weed?

I don’t for one second think the same issues would not exist. Abortion would still be an issue. Birth control would still be an issue. But we’d approach them from a whole different angle, wouldn’t we? We’d look at them in a different light. The culture as a whole would favor and disfavor different things. Culture and the psyche make each other up. The culture is the path of least resistance that people follow. It is the bumpers on the bowling alley of life. It is our collective common understanding acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It is the behavioral autopilot that individuals follow.

How did we get this way? How did we get to te point we're at?

Part of my longstanding argument about liberals and conservatives is that the culture of "reason" which sees the world as a collection of objects about which we make decisions based on cost/benefit analyses of the pros and cons that can be "proved" through science is the natural consequencs of the morality that sees and thinks only half the tools of social threat detection that evolution gave us. That morality is liberalism. It has a greater impact on us than we realize. What I do with comments is try to point out some of those impacts.

We did this to ourselves. We've created the culture we live in. We've chosen to be this way. As a culture we've lost something. We've lost a sense of wonder, a sense of reverence for life. And now we're lying in the bed we made. I don’t mean to sound like I’m beating the same old drum but the blame for the dehumanization of society, of ourselves, really does rest squarely and completely in the notion of the nanny state. In any large group you get the behavior that you incentivize, and what we’ve incentivized through the nanny state is the destruction of the seedbed of humanity; the family.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Opening up a can of worms, but isn't your longstanding argument about liberals and conservatives basically the same thing?

That conservatives are more generous, more intellectual, etc than liberals, and that liberals can't get it because they aren't hard-wired that way? That there is a moral component that liberals just don't get? Having been a former liberal and right leaning Libertarian, I believe that sometimes you are right on the money, and other times quite judgemental in a way that is a little much to take. To me, it's the same deal. You see it through your eyes and your experiences and this is your reality.

I am not picking on you. Or men, in general. We all see the world a different way. However, I do believe that if you haven't walked a mile in those shoes of a mom in a crisis pregancy, it's much, much more difficult to understand that decision to carry a child to term.

I will be back in several hours and likely not able to post. We have last minute T-day shopping and some early Christmas shopping to do today. Daughter back in town for a very short visit so I am going to make the most of it.

winchester · Guru

I am under the impression that you are male, winchester. If I am wrong, I apologize. I thought we had established that over the years of talking here. I should not have singled you out.

It's awkward when men want to legislate or dictate what women can or can't do with their bodies. Just my opinion.
I should have said specifically, "men", not "winchester".

Even so, I do understand that men are impacted by a woman's choice. And...so is the child.

SLS first let me say that I’m not picking on you. I don’t mean this personally. I’m picking on the idea you expressed. It's not just your opinion. It is an opinion that is widespread, and I just can’t help the feeling that there’s something twisted about it.

And by the way, did I say anything about legislating or dictating? No.

Abortion is not a “female” issue it is a human issue. Whether I am male or female is irrelevant. And making the statement generic toward men rather than singling me out makes it worse, not better.

Replace “winchester” with “men” and here’s the statement:

“The good news is that men will never have to agonize over a decision to carry or terminate a pregnancy.”

There’s something insidious about the idea that it’s “good news” that men will never “have to” agonize over it. It is dehumanizing to men, and to the abortion decision.
I still say it is incredibly insensitive, dismissive, and insulting to men.

The idea that it is “good news” that men will never “have to” agonize over the decision implies that only women “get it.” It implies that men are incapable of getting it; that they don’t care enough; that they are so little invested in the decision that it is "good news” that they’re shut out of it.

Or, it means that even if men were emotionally invested enough they’re certainly not up it intellectually. Only women are smart enough, or mature enough, or appreciate the gravity of the situation enough to be part of the decision.

Only women are qualified to be part of the decision so it is “good news,” and further it is good practice, that they are not part of it. You know, we wouldn’t want to feel “awkard” over something like abortion, now would we?

You understand that men are "impacted?" How thoughtful, how generous.

What do you think men are? Neanderthals whose only interest after wham bam thank you ma'am is a cigarette or a sandwich?

And then what happens? When women need men for something, when they want men’s inputs, when they think men SHOULD be part of some decision, when they demand something from men, or to be treated with respect or to be heard by men, then what? Then men have every right to say “Oh, I get it, when you have power over me to do as you damn well please no matter what I think or feel or say then it’s “good news” that I don’t have to "agonize" my knuckle dragging head over it, but now you want me for something, you need me for something, you think I owe you something, you demand something from me? Well screw you. I’m not going to “agonize” over that either. I need you like a fish needs a bicycle.”

longprime · Guru

an observation,

Until the GOP gets that, they will always lose the women's vote!

Women will nearly always rebel against anything that a Man tells them what to do. And 100% against what another woman tells them what to do. However, women will agree when there is a concensus of females. confuse

pima · Guru

+1 SLS.

I agree it is amazing that many here who support the GOP and are pro-life for their selves, support pro-choice for our country.

Until the GOP gets that, they will always lose the women's vote!

pima · Guru

bus,

your tubes tied comment made me laugh. You were military like me. I can't tell you how many friends went in for a tubal ligation, and got a Tummy tuck free!

I am just trying to lighten the conversation...but that is true regarding Tummy tucks.

pima · Guru

I agree SLS.

When I was a ****tail waitress in NJ, one night a customer gets a phone call on the bar phone. His DD was in a NYC hospital...critical condition. She was 16 yos.

She told Dad she was sleeping over her friend's house that night.

What she did that day was getting an abortion at 20 weeks. She had to wait because her and classmates had to get the money together to pay for the abortion. It took longer than she thought, and now she went to a back alley doc since she was in the end of her 2nd tri.

That has stuck with me since I was 22.

Abortions are going to occur, and we only risk lives if we reverse Roe V Wade.

You don't have to agree with abortions, but I think every woman, pro-choice/life really only want one thing...safety from a health issue.

Like I said, the emotional toll will forever be there. Look at the woman who was Roe. She is pro-life now. Don't you think one reason why is the toll?

Personally, I think that any woman who has an abortion should get some emotional counseling.

Again, here is the hypocrisy in our society. Complain about tax dollars for abortion and killing an innocent life, but at the same time let's not address welfare reform for those that had children.

I loved what NJ did back in the 90's. You enter on welfare with X amount of children, that is all you will get. They will pay for Norplant or Depo. If you get pregnant on either these BCs they will up the welfare payment. If you don't take these options, that next child is on your dime.

You can't have it both ways. Force the woman to have the child, and complain when she did. By doing so, you just illustrated that women are at the mercy of others. Others that won't be in their home, raising their child while at the same point not wanting to pay with your tax dollars.

My issue is not with pro-life, my issue is that many who are pro-life, have problems spending their tax dollars for forcing that life into the world. You want to overturn ROE V WADE, fine, have a party. Just don't complain about how much your tax dollars go to welfare and medi-care because of out wedlock births.

busdriver11 · Guru

I think so much depends upon one's religious view, and I'll bet far more women are pro choice than men. Do you think every life is sacred? Is the potential of a life more important or as important than one that already exists? Should an embryo in the womb have as much right to live as the woman who carries it? It becomes pretty complicated....you could have people making decisions for a woman if she should be allowed to have certain medications and treatments that might save her life and harm the fetus. Should a woman be prosecuted for having a glass of wine, coffee or not having enough folic acid in her system (birth defects)?

I'm agnostic, so it's far easier for me to fall on the side of a women's choice. Late term abortion, when a fetus is viable, no way. Early term, in the first couple of months, is okay to me. Sad, but the reality is that many woman have miscarriages during that time anyways. As pima said, a woman can help make a miscarriage happen. On the other hand, one can do everything possibly right and a miscarriage can happen anyways. Do we really, as a society, want to go to the place where we are determining which miscarriages are a woman's fault or not? I guess you do if you think the potential life is as or more important than a woman's life. If our society went that direction, I think plenty of highly educated women would just get their tubes tied, and here we go along the lines of the movie Idiocracy (only the low IQ reproduce).

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I don't believe what Romani said is a cop out. Until the baby is viable, it is dependent on mom for sustenance.

It is also a mass of tissue. An amazing mass of tissue, to be sure.

Of course, that child will be dependent on someone for sustenance for a good many years, after they are born.

The question to me is, do you want abortion to be safe, legal and rare, or do you want to reverse Roe v. Wade?

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I am under the impression that you are male, winchester. If I am wrong, I apologize. I thought we had established that over the years of talking here. I should not have singled you out.

It's awkward when men want to legislate or dictate what women can or can't do with their bodies. Just my opinion.

I should have said specifically, "men", not "winchester".

Even so, I do understand that men are impacted by a woman's choice. And...so is the child.

winchester · Guru

win, that is your view. That is not universal. Not by a long shot.

It's a lot more universal than many realize or will admit.

And there isn't a "body" for a while.

That's hair splitting, and a cop out. It is a rationalization used by many people (not saying you, just generically) to ease their own conscience.

We may not know when life begins, but we know for certain the exact instant at which we are created. That is the instant at which the debate over abortion begins, and no later.

pima · Guru

We are a prudish society, but what is worse is we are also hypocritical.

We don't want the school system to teach sex ed, because we believe that is a parent's right, yet at the same time, parent's aren't having the conversation, and than they beaccchhh about youth pregnancy rate and the cost of welfare due to un-wed mothers.

You can't have it both ways. Either we need an intervention, such as sex ed., or we don't. If you won't do it, and won't allow the school to do it, where will they learn abot it? Friends, internet?

My niece befriended our DS...3 yrs apart in age. She was 15. Her friend thought DS was cute, and sent him sexually explicit pms. DS immediately told us since he was 18. I called my SIL, her answer: Are you sure, maybe somebody hacked her friends account. Her DD does not hang out with girls like that. Y

Yes, I was sure.

The point is, my SIL was an ostrich, and is still an ostrich. My niece has told me she lost her virginity when she was 16. She is 20 now, with the same guy for a yr., and SIL still thinks her DD is a virgin. What gets me is SIL lost her virginity at 17, and as I said before there are many parents who believe their kids aren't doing exactly what they did. She lived with her husband before they were married.

My other SIL was the same. She lived with BIL before they were engaged, she was 22. Her DD was having her BF climb up to her room after midnight and climb out of the window before dawn. She was 17 and he was 20.

They are smart girls, they are young and their hormones were running amuck. They hid it from their folks. This is common amongst most parents. It really is what I don't know won't hurt me.

Our DD last spring came to me and said she wanted to go on the pill. I wasn't happy about it, but I made the apptmt. My job was/is to doing everything in my power to protect her...I reminded her to still use condoms to protect herself from an STD.

I also complimented her for being mature enough to come to me.

JMPO if I had went ballistic over this, she would have still found a way to get the pill. I had to put my money where my mouth was, and I know Bullet and I did not wait until I had the wedding ring on my finger. I couldn't condemn her for her actions.

Don't get me wrong, we don't condone pre-marital sex. We just acknowledge life, and the fact she was 20, not 15, living 200 miles away in college..

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

win, that is your view. That is not universal. Not by a long shot.

And there isn't a "body" for a while. I'll end there though as there's really no point in arguing this one. No one on either side is going to change his/her view points over an internet discussion :).

pima, I was agreeing with you about needing to be careful. I also agree that there's too much perceived "uck" factor in these conversations because we are just rather prudish as a society. It's always there as a glaring under current, but out in the open and "ew". Sex and these issues came up in casual conversation for us as well and therefore we never needed to sit down and have "the talk".

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

pima · Guru

winchester, for some women, they can see it at that way since a heartbeat is not detected until the end of their 1st trimester. It is easy to understand from their POV that it is their body.

Again, I am pro-life, but I respect pro-choice women. Just illustrating why it is an argument in their mind.

winchester · Guru

The "it is her body" argument doesn't wash.

It is SOMEBODY ELSE'S body that is the subject of abortion. It is most definitively NOT her body.

If she demands "keep your laws off my body" then doesn't she owe every other person the same respect, including the person who is growing inside her?

Saying it is "my body, my choice" is specious. It is totally self centered and uncaring and unfeeling about anybody else. It is a horrible argument. It is a non-argument.

pima · Guru

Trust me romanig, I think the fact that we had that discussion made both of our DS's think about having sex and using protection. We also reminded all of our kids that whoever they have sex with, they are also in a way tied to everyone else that person ever had sex with. We told them having a child is not the worst thing that can happen, STDs that stay with you forever is our fears.

I think our society really does not do enough regarding conversing with our children. Many prefer to be ostriches. Our talks were never the UCK, Mom, Dad this is uncomfortable behind close doors. These conversations came up in general talking, and so they were reminded every time about the other issues.

I also support a woman's choice, and honestly I don't think it could ever change. For example, let's say there was a way for a man to force her to go full term, the fact is if she wanted to terminate she could fall down a flight of stairs. If she truly despises him for forcing her to carry, she could eat crap and drink a bottle of wine a day.

Unfotunately, nobody can tell me that wouldn't happen.

OBTW, I remember @10 yrs ago my GF, with her DH and Bullet and I were having a conversation regarding if our girls got pregnant out of wedlock. She had stated if their DD wanted to terminate she would do everything possible to stop it. That if their DD did not terminate, but gave the child up for adoption, they would adopt the baby.

I sat in shock and asked her DH would agree to that. He said yes, I couldn't know I have a grandchild out there being raised by strangers.

I asked even if it means your DD would never speak to you again? YES.

I tried to illustrate how hard it would be for their DD to see them raise her child against her wishes. Their answer was simple, she got pregnant, and to them the innocent child should not be punished. They could not, would not see how this would probably create more emotional issues than anyone could imagine. They just believed that their DD would change their mind and would thank them for saving her from making a poor decision.

Her DD did get pregnant out of wedlock @25 yrs old. She married the Dad when she was 4 months along. They separated when the baby was 30 months. He has seen the child about 1x a month in the last 6 months. She will tell you they got married to give their DD a family. Like I said 2 wrongs don't make a right.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Clearly four women posting their viewpoints on abortion aren't a representative sample.

Three of those four didn't vote for Obama. One of those voted for Gary Johnson, a libertarian.

Herein lies the rub...we are pro-choice, even when we support GOP. Pro-choice for different reasons. Pro-life for each of us, individually, yet, pro-choice as a whole.

Abortion is a no winner, politically. Few people look at it like it's simply that "mass of tissue". It's an emotionally charged one. Yet, we all see through our own filter about why it should be legal, even if it may be immoral or upsetting.

I know a few religious folks who would have an abortion if the situation arose and the child would suffer, I know those that are agnostic that won't. It's an individual decision.

I don't believe the GOP will win another Presidency until they figure this out.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Wednesday 21st of November 2012 09:43:31 AM

pima · Guru

I disagree with you win. There is only 1 child out of my 3 that I know when they were created. It is DS1, and not to give too much TMI, there was only 1 day he could have been conceived since we had house guests the rest of the time.

I also agree with SLS regarding 1 in 4 miscarrying.

I am 100% positive I did miscarry @ the 4 week marker. Back in the early 90's home pregnancy tests you had to wait for @ 1 week past your period. I was like clockwork. I was a week late, and decided the next day I would buy a test. That night I got my period. It is the one time to this day that I was late that did not come out to be a pregnancy.

For myself. Bullet and I were placed in a heart wrenching position a few months after that. All of our pregnancies were planned. I took DS1 in for his MMR shot. I took the doc pregnancy test the same day.

24 hrs later we get the call from my OB. I was pregnant! YAY!

48 hrs later DS has a reaction that looks like Measles. Took him, we are placed into quarantine. We were military, so all of the docs are in the hospital, peds and OB.

OB comes to me and states, they don't know if the innoculation was a live virus. They took a blood tither to see if I had the anti-bodies. I was told I had to wait 10 days for the results...we lived in the UK, and they were sending it to Germany. If it was a live virus, and I didn't have the anti-bodies, we had no choice, they would terminate the pregnancy.

Tests come back it wasn't live. Good to go.

10 weeks later I take the AFP blood test, which is no longer given due to false positives. They came to me and said there was an 85% chance our DD had spina bifida due to the results. They brought me for a high res. ultrasound, and it showed all was fine, but needed to re-test me using other methods which would take a week.

Bullet was in Germany, as soon as he came back we flew home to NJ. I called 7 days later, at 3 a.m. in the morning, my sister heard me on the phone. She asked what was going on. Rich and I had decided since I was 14 weeks along, and knowing the impact this would have on our DS, plus moving every 2-3 yrs in the AF, this was not meant to be. It came out that the doc took the test to early, thus I had a false positive.

I would have terminated my pregnancy. I placed the quality of life for the child I had in the world above everything. I had to think about him.

I am glad the docs did every test. I had a choice. It wouldn't have been easy if the results came out the other way. I don't see myself as being selfish. I see myself as placing the child that was in this world above a child that wasn't.

People think that an abortion is easy. It carries a very large emotional toll. If I had to do what I thought I would have, don't fool yourself, I would have seen every child as my child if they were born in 1992. I would have always wondered what she would have looked like, what college she would have gone to, how many kids she would have had.

I was very lucky. I am just saying before anyone ever thinks that a woman who terminates a pregnancy ever forgets about that decision just doesn't get women.

Society doesn't need to make this an argument, or a guilt trip, trust me they live with it every single day of their life.

Now you know why I became pro-life for me, but support pro-choice for others.

-- Edited by pima on Wednesday 21st of November 2012 08:32:25 AM

winchester · Guru

The good news is that Winchester will never have to agonize over a decision to carry or terminate a pregnancy

And you know this how?

Do you have any idea how insensitve, dismissive, and insulting that is, on multiple levels?

-- Edited by winchester on Wednesday 21st of November 2012 08:07:52 AM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

The good news is that Winchester will never have to agonize over a decision to carry or terminate a pregnancy. The bad news is that about half the population will have this potential dilemma at some point in their lives.

For the vast majority of women who get pregnant, it is delightful news. It truly isn't always for others. We can say take personal responsibility and raise the child ir give up the child to living parents through adoption. Sorry, folks, but that may be easier said then done.

I remember being that coed with a job and question marks about what to do next. I had health insurance, but not maternity insurance. I made too much to qualify for assistance, but if I had the baby, would be paying for it. In cash. For me, my choice was simple. I also had a wonderful fiancé who rolled with this obstacle and we married. We would have married, regardless. I was fortunate. However, the financial devastation to two twenty-something's without steady employment put us in a perilous financial path for years to come. The fact that this baby ended up having some fairly significant, but thank goodness not more expensive cardiac issues caused our bills to climb.

I guess my feeling is, unless we as a nation are willing to every potential life born to moms that don't have the means, well, some of those lives are better off not being born. This may make me seem callous and uncaring. I have seen babies whose lives were cut short by genetic quirks. I have seen children whose moms were drug users while pregnant. Do you know how fragile some of these kids lives are like forever? Pretty damn terrible.

Personally, I have had three pregnancies, despite using birth control. I was sicker than you could imagine with pneumonia and took narcotic cough medicine, steroids and asthma meds, several courses of antibiotics, along with migraine meds before I found out I was pregnant with kid number three. Fortunately, she turned out okay. Those meds didn't harm her. There is a new study about autism that says there might be a link between moms who had the flu while pregnant and this may be the missing link.

One if my jobs is working with kids who are special needs, and helping them find a career oath post high school. It is depressing. They are long to have a hell of a time. These parents jump through hoops to get their kids services in school and manage the system. It is tough. Most of these parents would do it all again because they love their kids. But being handed a new baby with a life altering defect s a lot different than seeing how that child may live his or her life long term.The financial and emotional burdens are often huge for the whole family.

I have no idea what the statistics are, but children with these issues often create huge stresses in families. Nearly all of the special needs parents I know are divorced or separated. Even those who never thought they would never, ever divorce. One in for pregnancies naturally terminates, often without mom ever knowing she was pregnant. For women who have a monthly cycle roughly from age 12, many of us look at these events as fairly unfun, but just part of being a woman. Some of us have cycles every two or three months, and a termination may not seem all that different at that point from a heavy period. Sorry, but that is just the fact.

I fall on the side of a woman's body argument, especially in the first trimester. The baby cannot live out of the womb. Even those babies that are born too early to parents that want them, if they are too early they may suffer a life of pain. I have seen this firsthand with my friend's son,born too early and died at age 5, after suffering nearly constant excruciatingly painful seizures for his whole young life.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Wednesday 21st of November 2012 08:13:04 AM

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

pima, my only response to that is that your DS should think about that before having sex. I think it's unfair, absolutely, but it's something that should always be on their mind before having sex. I know of too many women who get pregnant "on purpose" to keep the guy or get his money. It's complete bull but it's a reality. That's why men need to be very careful about who they sleep with.

I'm on the fence about whether or not men should have inputs about abortion. In over 30 states, it is legal for the rapist to sue for visitation rights. I don't even want to think about what kind of path and battle we'd go through with abortion and rapes if the man got a say- or how many false rape reports there would be if men in general had a say but not rapists. Until a good solution can be found, I support keeping it the woman's choice. Until a good argument can be made to protect women, I'll stay that way, but I'm very open to hearing thoughts about this.

People should not be forced to marry just to give the child a "family". I agree it's insane. Absolutely insane.

pima · Guru

You have a point, but I think as you say they keep trying to pass measures and they keep failing.

Abortion is not a choice I would choose for myself, but I would not force my decision on anyone, including my DD. Her body, and her right.

Off topic, but this is what always burns my goat when women's rights are discussed regarding abortion. We have 2 DSs. If they get a girl pregnant and she decides to keep the baby, against their wishes to terminate the pregnancy, they will pay for 18 yrs. They have no voice, and society basically says...you got her pregnant.

Now if they want her to have the child, and are even willing to raise the child without her assistance, but she wants to terminate, they again have no voice. Society says it is her body.

I think it is hypocritical to men. You can't have it both ways...blame him for getting her pregnant, but not have any input regarding their future. If you really want to say it is your body, your choice, than release them from any financial burden if they don't support your choice.

Like I said, I have 2 boys, 1 girl. I see both sides, and would support my children in their decision, I just wanted to illustrate the double standards within our society even from the pro-choice position.

When we had "the talk" with our boys. We discussed this, and told them this:
If she decides to have the child...you will still go to college, we will pay for child support, and pay us back when you graduate. Our version of their student loan. If you are still together at that point, we will throw you the biggest wedding you can imagine. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I know friends in NC that were aghast at us saying this. They believed it would be better to have them marry so their grandchild would be raised in a family. Their DS's knew if that situation occurred their parents expected a wedding. I thought this was insane.

busdriver11 · Guru

Pima, I don't think too many of the electorate stay politically informed, nor do they think for themselves.

Then again, there is reason to be concerned, for those who are pro choice. The makeup of the Supreme Court always is an issue. There are serious erosion of access to abortion in certain states where there are high numbers of conservative lawmakers. Look at Mississippi. They keep trying to pass measures that will make abortion impossible, and I have heard (don't know how true this is), there is only one clinic in the entire state where a woman can get an abortion. So living in my little liberal world in Washington State, I can think it's ridiculous that they'll ever be able to ban abortion. At least, maybe in my state. Plus with access to RU-486, a woman should not need to get an abortion if she was to terminate a pregnancy. Regardless, there are places where it's getting mighty tough to have access. Just because I don't see it here, doesn't mean it isn't a reality.

A state like Mississippi, being at the top of the list in poverty rates, and the bottom of the list in education.....should have free birth control on every corner, door to door delivery, and I don't care if the govt pays for it or not. Far cheaper than paying for generations of welfare, food stamps and poverty related programs. Spending time trying to ban abortion and shut down clinics that provide access to birth control and abortion is insane.

pima · Guru

bus,

As someone that leans R, I never understood their position regarding gay marriage. Let homosexuals marry. Let their churches decide if they will perform the ceremonies. Isn't that what separation of Church and State is about.

If the Catholic church says no, so be it...get married at the court house.

I was shocked that our DD voted MR. She is 20, and said to her friends: DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT WOULD BE TO OVERTURN ROE V WADE?

In VA that was every other commercial, but she was right, MR could have sworn up and down a lamp post, but reality was he couldn't do squat!

Those that voted for Obama out of fear regarding abortion, I worry about you. You never took the time to inform yourself. You bought what the PACs were selling.

busdriver11 · Guru

The problem is, the GOP is choosing the losing side of some of these social issues, they aren't in the majority opinion, and it will always lose them votes.

Gay marriage? That cat's out of the bag, and people are becoming more accustomed to and supportive of it. If your party is anti-gay marriage, you aren't getting any gay votes.

Abortion? The majority does not support making it illegal. Even people who are queasy about it may not want it to be illegal. I'd guess that areas where the majority does support banning it will vote Republican anyways. Making Planned Parenthood funding an issue is pure stupidity. People can see right through the, "We don't have money to spend on this kind of thing right now," and realize it's all part of the push to ban abortion. That is a big, massive loser. You lose a lot of female votes.

longprime · Guru

Perhaps we should be thanking Mitt for his poor sportsmanship. Maybe another rant after Thanksgiving will be the final impetus for the GOP to either split up or "change". evileye

Gov Bobby Jindal's opinion, 7 points. I like #1 the best. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/15/opinion/jindal-gop-election/index.html

"1. Stop looking backward. We have to boldly show what the future can look like with the free market policies that we believe in. Conservative ideals are aspirational, and our country is aspirational."

-- Edited by longprime on Monday 19th of November 2012 09:18:57 AM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

The GOP has to decide if it wants to continue down the path of their issues, which are in a nutshell: Not to be too crass, but it will come out this way.... -Money for defense of country -Less babies terminated -Legal, as opposed to illegal immigration -Gun rights -Traditional values based on Judeo-Christian religions Or go in the Dem's direction of cradle to grave nanny state, unchecked spending on entitlement programs that keep people dependent on government for years, and more. There is a middle line there somewhere. GOP will never want to be Democratic-lite. Personally, I am more libertarian. I think we get out of bedrooms, legalize marijuana and leave it to the states to decide most important issues. I had to laugh at a proposition in LA County. It passed. I figured it wouldn't. On the face of it, this measure required adult film stars to wear a condom. Sounds like no big deal, right? A good thing? Protecting their health is important and not spreading disease, even better. Yet...this proposition basically is going to kill This industry in the county, and porn is big business. It will send these porn productions outside of L A County. We need the film revenue to help fund, well everything. I have heard conflicting information - one study says 18 times the rate of STD's for this group of actors. Supposedly, the actors are tested monthly and report no higher incidence if STD's than in regular population. The point is, Democrats feel no compunction about dictating their social issues. It's their bread and butter. So, serious question...why should the GOP stay out of them or change their own platform? (Okay, the whole losing two Elections, maybe.)

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Monday 19th of November 2012 07:43:14 AM

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Monday 19th of November 2012 07:46:05 AM

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

^ Please?

soccerguy315 · Guru

the Republican party can easily get out of social issues by being the party of small federal government, that doesn't get involved in those issues.

longprime · Guru

"I wish the Republican party would get uninvolved with social issues. Out, outta there. They are losing issues."

Never will happen. GOP is about, Moms, which I know about by being mothered; and Apple Pie, which I know a great deal. wink

busdriver11 · Guru

I wish the Republican party would get uninvolved with social issues. Out, outta there. They are losing issues.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

I wrote in Gary Johnson. Honestly, my vote didn't matter (sorry, MR, there was no way Michigan was going red- not sure where that strange idea came from) so I wanted to contribute nationally to a third party.

Never could I, in good conscious, vote for MR. I was hoping for a moderate Republican ticket. I was disappointed. That's all I'll say on that.
I don't like having only two options. I was hoping beyond hope that GJ could get 5% of the vote to open up the POTENTIAL for a viable third party.

Believe it or not, I am very open-minded. In no way am I a hard-core Dem. In fact, a lot of stuff they do drives me up a wall (can we start with not having an ounce of spine?). BUT I can't vote for a party that wants to deny my two closest friends and myself equal rights (gay marriage, among others). If the Republicans move to the middle on social issues, go towards limited government on social issues as well as economic, they have my vote! I was truly hoping they'd at least be open to talking about it, but it seems not. I *do* think that will change after this election. I think the conversation is going to change dramatically. But now, I am in a lose/lose situation so I'd rather contribute to hopefully opening up an alternative. I knew, realistically, that it would fail, but I really, really dislike these two options. I'm pretty libertarian.

I have a job lined up on an as-needed basis, but I'm hoping not to need it. I'm hoping to be in a grad program. Americorps isn't out of the question. TFA and Peace Corps are.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

^ And they're losing voters- a LOT of voters- which is why I think the conversation is going to change drastically after this election. (Maybe that's just wishful thinking.) I'd be happy if they even just left it to the states. I'm fine with this (I think... I'm actually kind of on the fence about some of these things, but it's better than what they're doing now): get rid of DOMA, get rid of federal abortion laws, get rid of the "war on drugs". That way at least if states want to legalize something (Maryland, Washington, etc), they wouldn't have to fight the feds.

-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Sunday 18th of November 2012 05:19:42 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

My kids, I am most certain, both voted MR. They are open minded and unbiased (despite their parents), libertarian and practical. Though the youngest claimed he was voting for Batman, his FB page has a "like" MR, and there's no doubt about it. He was one of the only non-liberals at his high school, you could count them on one hand, at least the ones out of the closet. The oldest is econ/comp sci, so he is pure logic and non-emotional, met MR and liked him, so no doubt about that either.

Oldest son has a job lined up after graduation, stable and high paying. He is happy and has no worries about the future, no debt, low spender. He'll have more money in his bank account than we will eventually, unless he meets some high spending woman (I suspect he'll hook up with a low maintenance brainiac, so no worries there).
Youngest has all the optimism in the world, no debt, likes spending and making money, but has a less employable career path right now. He has an exuberant personality, and I'm sure he'll charm his way into a great job (or a wealthy wife).

They ought to be pessimistic, but neither of them are wired that way. I suspect both of them will find a way to be successful, no matter what. And it helps if you aren't materialistic and don't really care about $$, because even if your jobs pays peanuts, if your needs are low then you will be fine. I'm not that worried about my kids, but I sure am worried about everything else.

pima · Guru

Our DD was a staunch D. She attends college 4 hrs away, she did vote absentee. I would have bet my life she voted for Obama. Glad I didn't because Bullet would have been sitting Shiva for his Mother and ME too!

She voted MR. She is a jr. in college.

She actually said to me, Mom, you are right; People vote with their wallets. Her older brother commissioned as an AF officer last May, she is a jr. in college, and her younger brother is a freshman in college.

She "got it" after yrs of me saying Abortion really isn't an issue, MR can say he wants to repeal it, but SCOTUS are life appointments, and legal cases have to be heard by them. Abortion was fear mongering.

She "got it" now regarding education---her career field. She just finished applying for internships, and realized it is not the fed. govt., but the state and county that pays. She saw Obama's 100K teachers as a BS line because teachers are paid using state/county/city taxes.

~~~ She intends to go with the Peace Corps or Teach for America upon graduation. Mainly because it will give her an edge. As a parent, Bullet and I have said it is pretty sad we would feel better if she went with the Peace Corps to a 3rd world country than the Teach for America program. During Bullet's Mom's Shiva, everyone our age agreed that Peace Corps was safer. Not from a hiring perspective, but from a safety issue for a 5'0 female issue. That says it all when it comes to our inner cities which is the Teach for program.

She is fortunate, because she is IS and will not have college debt. Her decision is an employment aspect. She belongs to a sororitory, her "twin" was going to go med school, and now as a jr. backing off because she has undergrad debt., and with med school she will have 150K when all is said and done. Obamacare is making her change her career path.

With all of that info, DD voted for MR. She is now in fear of her employment opportunities and so are her friends.

That is my anecdotal stories, curious of what other posters kids and their friends feel about employment come 2014-16 and the amount of debt they are carrying at this young age?