Gloria Steinem on Sarah Palin

[Mrs Mungo]

Eight years of GWB has not closed them down, and it was a Clinton eight years at the time I am remembering.

 

Did you miss the recent post by the woman proudly declaring that PP had been run out of her town?

 

IMO the cause of teen pregnancy and STDs (attribute to lack of condom use if you like) is the popular culture's painting of sex as "something everyone does" and unprotected sex as "something you do if you're in a committed relationship". Then there's the idea in many men's mind that if their girlfriend gets knocked up, "well she'd better get that taken care of."

 

Back when I was close with young teenage girls, they all *knew* how to prevent pregnancy, it was getting the young boysfriends to wear the things that was a problem. So they all ran over to the PP clinic to get their pills... which weren't going to prevent any STDs.

 

I do agree that this should be tackled from multiple angles.

 

That is a definition of life issue, that's true. That life begins at conception and those methods mention is destroying a life that has already been created.

 

It's also true that conservatives use condoms, pills, diaphrams and other methods. And they aren't going against their principles to do so.

 

Right, I disagree with that notion of "life." A blastocyst truly is a small collection of cells. You aren't killing anything by not allowing it to implant any more than you are killing the female egg or male sperm by not allowing them to meet and become life. Yes, that's just my opinion but there is no definite answer and I don't think the government should be making that decision for me.

 

eta: Women who believe life begins at conception would be going against their principles if they used the combination birth control pill. Condoms and diaphragms are barrier methods and wouldn't help women like me who need hormones to keep me from having a period for months at a time.

[Jenn in Mo]

I believe there is no "safe sex".

 

What's unsafe about two virgins getting married and having sex?

[LG Gone Wild]

 

Right, I disagree with that notion of "life." A blastocyst truly is a small collection of cells. You aren't killing anything by not allowing it to implant any more than you are killing the female egg or male sperm by not allowing them to meet and become life. Yes, that's just my opinion but there is no definite answer and I don't think the government should be making that decision for me.

 

I get that your definition is different. The point is that the article (which I can't read because I have to sign up) excerpt is about people trying to prevent, in their opinion, murder and not about getting rid of birth control that doesn't destroy life.

[Sunkirst]

I have respect for Steinem, and until his choice of Palin, I had great respect for McCain. I realize it was a savvy political choice, and it has energized the base that was not wholly in support of him, however, it has created just one too many hypocrisies.

 

In watching McCain's speech, one could almost believe he was a democrat. Many of the issues that he is running on are moderate and tend to have the support of the middle of the electorate. He also came down hard on "The past eight years..," mentioning numerous things on which he and the current administration disagree. Then he picks this hardcore neocon as his running mate!? She would have been a more likely VP in the Bush administration that McCain spend half his speech disparaging. The choice makes me sad and angry with McCain. To me this just smacks of "Win at All Costs," and makes me wonder if his personal integrity, which has withstood so much, has failed him now.

 

-Kirsten

[Mamagistra]

What's unsafe about two virgins getting married and having sex?

 

Well, they could fall off the bed... :lol: :lol:

 

:leaving:

[nakitty]

Well, they could fall off the bed... :lol: :lol:

 

:leaving:

 

HI-larious!

[Phred]

Well, in my opinion, correlation does not equal causation. If *abstinence* doesn't prevent pregnancy or STD's, well then nothing can. ;)

 

IMO, again, abstinence is the only safe sex.

 

That is only common sense.

No... common sense is understanding that teenagers have raging hormones and tend to act upon them. Telling them not to have sex is all well and good but they still do it. And if all you do is tell them not to have sex then when they do have sex anyway they do it unprepared. We've tried it your way for eight years now... and it hasn't worked.

 

I believe that society, peers, the media, and lack of parental guidance, have more to do with any current problems than any school program. I don't believe school programs have that much power and influence over kids.

The school programs are there because parents have tended to abdicate their roles with kids. "lack of parental guidance"... now you know why Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter is an issue. If Republicans are going to claim they know better, that abstinence-only education is the way to go and then we get results like the highest teen pregnancy rates and 1 in 4 teen girls with an STD and the teenage daughter of the Republican VP nominee is pregnant... well, quite obviously they don't know better.

 

And... frankly... if a girl tells a boy that the only way he's gonna get to do that is if he wears one of those then by god he's gonna find one of those and put it on. If she doesn't really know about those and it's just a question between doing it or not doing it.... somebody's gonna get pregnant. Why not equip them with the knowledge to know better?

[Jami]

Well, they could fall off the bed... :lol: :lol:

 

:leaving:

 

:lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

I get that your definition is different. The point is that the article (which I can't read because I have to sign up) excerpt is about people trying to prevent, in their opinion, murder and not about getting rid of birth control that doesn't destroy life.

 

Right.

 

So, in their opinion birth control pills, IUDs, etc are *murder* and should be made illegal, something they are working toward and having some success. Barrier methods of birth control don't help women who need the hormones for other reasons. It's none of a pharmacist's business WHY I'm taking birth control, it's between me and my doctor. THAT'S the problem.

[LG Gone Wild]

eta: Women who believe life begins at conception would be going against their principles if they used the combination birth control pill. Condoms and diaphragms are barrier methods and wouldn't help women like me who need hormones to keep me from having a period for months at a time.

 

 

Pill prevent conception so I am not sure how that goes against a person's belief that life begins at conception. As for your other statement, if you need pills for your health, then you need pills for your health. (shrug) I imagine that conservative women share whatever condition you have and have gone your route and are not abandoning their principles doing it.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

IMO the cause of teen pregnancy and STDs (attribute to lack of condom use if you like) is the popular culture's painting of sex as "something everyone does" and unprotected sex as "something you do if you're in a committed relationship". Then there's the idea in many men's mind that if their girlfriend gets knocked up, "well she'd better get that taken care of."

 

 

Sex is something that a majority of people do, or at least want to do. The notion that peer pressure related to sex is something new is totally false.

 

Men can have the idea all they want as to what choice a woman needs to make when discovering she is pregnant. However, it is up to that woman, not the man, and certainly not the government, what choice she makes.

[Jenn in Mo]

Well, they could fall off the bed... :lol: :lol:

 

:leaving:

 

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!:001_tt2:

[hsmamainva]

Well, they could fall off the bed... :lol: :lol:

 

:leaving:

 

:smilielol5:

[Mrs Mungo]

Pill prevent conception so I am not sure how that goes against a person's belief that life begins at conception.

 

Combination birth control pills (which work way better than the "mini-pill" as most women know) work in three ways. First, they prevent ovulation. Second, they thicken cervical mucus which blocks sperm in case you *do* ovulate. Third, they prevent the implantation of a blastocyst into the uterus if the first two fail.

 

As for your other statement, if you need pills for your health, then you need pills for your health. (shrug) I imagine that conservative women share whatever condition you have and have gone your route and are not abandoning their principles doing it.

 

I'm not concerned about what conservative women do. I'm concerned about what decisions conservatives in government *want to make for me*. Pharmacists have already refused to provide contraception in some places or in come cases have asked women why they are taking bcps. The article I linked has nothing to do with women and the choices they make, it had to do with protecting pharmacists who don't want to give me medication prescribed by my doctor. This is a huge issue.

[Brigitte]

I would be interested to see what the numbers have to say about the increase in the number of sexual messages kids are exposed to today as compared to say 20 years ago. Could the increase in STD's and teen pregnancies possibly have something to do, at least in part, with the fact that kids are bombarded with sexual messages like they never have been before? Hmmm.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I'm not concerned about what conservative women do. I'm concerned about what decisions conservatives in government *want to make for me*.

 

I totally wish I could rep you. :hurray::hurray::hurray:

[sarahli]

Pill prevent conception so I am not sure how that goes against a person's belief that life begins at conception. As for your other statement, if you need pills for your health, then you need pills for your health. (shrug) I imagine that conservative women share whatever condition you have and have gone your route and are not abandoning their principles doing it.

 

The pill only decreases your chance of conception. It does not eliminate it. If you do conceive it will probably not implant due to the progestin. Some Christians consider this abortion, others do not.

[TeacherZee]

I totally wish I could rep you. :hurray::hurray::hurray:

 

*whispers*

 

Did it for ya! Also because I agree with what she said :D

[sarahli]

I would be interested to see what the numbers have to say about the increase in the number of sexual messages kids are exposed to today as compared to say 20 years ago. Could the increase in STD's and teen pregnancies possibly have something to do, at least in part, with the fact that kids are bombarded with sexual messages like they never have been before? Hmmm.

 

 

Nope, I think that's backwards.

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html

 

Results: Adolescent childbearing is more common in the United States (22% of women reported having had a child before age 20) than in Great Britain (15%), Canada (11%), France (6%) and Sweden (4%);

 

It seems as if the more sexual messages they are exposed to, the LESS teen pregnancies there are!!!

[LG Gone Wild]

I'm concerned about what decisions conservatives in government *want to make for me*.

 

 

Now that's ironic. I'm concerned about what decisions liberals in government *want to make for me* such as that my 13 yo dd could have an abortion without my consent.

[LizzyBee]

Conservatives believe that preventing a blastocyst from implanting in the uterus is the same as an abortion.

 

Maybe some, certainly not all.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

Nope, I think that's backwards.

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html

 

 

 

It seems as if the more sexual messages they are exposed to, the LESS teen pregnancies there are!!!

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you a million times over for posting that!!!!!!

 

Now someone rep her too, cause I'm all dried up (lol).

[dirty ethel rackham]

That is my question!! When I was growing up in the 70's and 80's, it wasn't in as in your face. Shows like Desperate Housewives weren't on in early prime time. Anything that is marketed to teens uses sex to sell - tv, movies, clothing (abercrombie and fitch ring a bell?)

[Mama Lynx]

Ah, nevermind.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

That is my question!! When I was growing up in the 70's and 80's, it wasn't in as in your face. Shows like Desperate Housewives weren't on in early prime time. Anything that is marketed to teens uses sex to sell - tv, movies, clothing (abercrombie and fitch ring a bell?)

 

Don't go to Europe.

[Mrs Mungo]

Now that's ironic. I'm concerned about what decisions liberals in government *want to make for me* such as that my 13 yo dd could have an abortion without my consent.

 

I don't think anyone under 18 should be able to have a medical procedure without their parent's consent. See? Middle ground. :)

 

And LizzyBee-I didn't mean to imply *all* conservatives believe bcps=abortion, sorry about that. eta: I was mixing up the threads I had posted in. I used the qualifier "many" the first time but neglected it the second time. Again, I apologize.

[LizzyBee]

And furthermore...I have to say...I am quite disgusted by a lot of what I am reading here.... seriously? If it weren't for Gloria Steinem and women like her.... we women wouldn't have the RIGHT to VOTE, the RIGHT to a COLLEGE EDUCATION, the RIGHT to OWN LAND, or the RIGHT to CONTROL OUR ABILITY TO REPRODUCE......and we are STILL fighting for EQUAL WAGES......... your lack of empathy to the women's movement is a slap in the faces of those that have lost much in order to attain freedoms for YOU! I have no patience for ignorant women (especially women) that complain about the women's movement while content to bask in the freedoms that the fight has entitled them.... I find it completely intolerable. :glare:

 

It's true that I have benefited from the work of feminists. So that means I'm not allowed to disagree with them?

[sarahli]

I have respect for Steinem, and until his choice of Palin, I had great respect for McCain. I realize it was a savvy political choice, and it has energized the base that was not wholly in support of him, however, it has created just one too many hypocrisies.

 

In watching McCain's speech, one could almost believe he was a democrat. Many of the issues that he is running on are moderate and tend to have the support of the middle of the electorate. He also came down hard on "The past eight years..," mentioning numerous things on which he and the current administration disagree. Then he picks this hardcore neocon as his running mate!? She would have been a more likely VP in the Bush administration that McCain spend half his speech disparaging. The choice makes me sad and angry with McCain. To me this just smacks of "Win at All Costs," and makes me wonder if his personal integrity, which has withstood so much, has failed him now.

 

-Kirsten

 

It makes me sad too. Actually his whole campaign does. He wanted to pick Lieberman as his VP, but he has to get GWB/ Rightwing votes or he won't win. He's bending over backwards to please them, especially the Big Oil folks. I can tell even early on he knew he was compromising his own standards but didn't have a choice.

[LizzyBee]

And LizzyBee-I didn't mean to imply *all* conservatives believe bcps=abortion, sorry about that. eta: I was mixing up the threads I had posted in. I used the qualifier "many" the first time but neglected it the second time. Again, I apologize.

 

No problem. :)

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

For those who want to read a bit of the "other side" of all this hype about sex being such a bad thing and how it's ruining our children, etc. etc....

 

There is a guy by the name of Dr. Marty Klein who has a book out called The War on Sex. He also has a blog that can be checked out here

 

http://sexualintelligence.wordpress.com/

 

While I do not agree with Dr. Klein 100% of the time, I personally find his point of view very refreshing.

 

If anyone watched the 20/20 episode John Stossel did sometime back on sex in our culture, this was the guy on there.

[LG Gone Wild]

I don't think anyone under 18 should be able to have a medical procedure without their parent's consent. See? Middle ground. :)

 

 

 

LOL!:cheers2:

 

 

Now, I am going to go :chillpill:. I hate arguing.

[nakitty]

Now that's ironic. I'm concerned about what decisions liberals in government *want to make for me* such as that my 13 yo dd could have an abortion without my consent.

 

They are not making any decisions for you! If your dd had an abortion at 13...that would be a choice she is making for herself....and you having a problem with that is/should be.... strictly between YOU and HER...the government should NOT have anything to do with it.

 

I am very torn on this area of the law.....because I know that *I* would be extremely upset if my dd felt she had to go through something like that without me.... HOWEVER, there are just to many 'what ifs...' and I am absolutely opposed to making *my* personal feelings about it dictate how other people chose to live their lives.

[nakitty]

It's true that I have benefited from the work of feminists. So that means I'm not allowed to disagree with them?

 

Yes, that is what it means....:glare:

 

Sarcasm aside....it depends, you can disagree with aspects of it without 'throwing the baby out with bath water'.... And, even if you don't agree with them 100% of the time you should still be able to show some respect for the work they have done to benefit all women. Sorta like being for the soldiers regardless of your feelings on all aspects of the war....

[Elaine]

Was this a mis-type? Did you mean that they ARE going against their principles?

 

Are you being serious or sarcastic? It's hard to tell with you sometimes.

[Joanne]

You may not like her (I'm not a big fan either) but ladies like her made it possible for women like us to choose whether to stay home or work outside the house.

 

And furthermore...I have to say...I am quite disgusted by a lot of what I am reading here.... seriously? If it weren't for Gloria Steinem and women like her.... we women wouldn't have the RIGHT to VOTE, the RIGHT to a COLLEGE EDUCATION, the RIGHT to OWN LAND, or the RIGHT to CONTROL OUR ABILITY TO REPRODUCE......and we are STILL fighting for EQUAL WAGES......... your lack of empathy to the women's movement is a slap in the faces of those that have lost much in order to attain freedoms for YOU! I have no patience for ignorant women (especially women) that complain about the women's movement while content to bask in the freedoms that the fight has entitled them.... I find it completely intolerable.

 

*shrug* I don't agree that the 70's Feminist Icons are owed anything more than my courtesy that I'd give anyone else. I personally believe that *organized feminism* did damage as well as the progress you documented. I think it was, in part, the nature of having to make major change; a group often needs to go *so far* off the continuum to effect change. I think in going off the continuum, we as a culture did some damage to families. Were the changes necessary? Yes. Would they have happened as a matter of course eventually? Yes. Were they accelerated by Steinem, et al? Yes. Was it all beneficial, neutral or benign? No.

 

What I don't like about the linked and quoted Steinem piece is that she'll support the career success of women *who agree with her only*. Woman who support *her* agenda are welcome to politics, and every other person with a vagina is undeserving because they have a different world view and perspective.

 

Let's be real about the hot button issues - we will NEVER get anywhere until both sides:

 

Understand how a person can feel abortion at any time after conception = murder.

 

Understand why people feel strongly women need the legal protection of say over their reproduction.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Understand why parental authority must be sacrosanct.

 

Understand the concern and care of making sure no child suffers.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Understand why people do not wish the gov't to handle healthcare.

 

Understand why people feel the *only* sane thing to do is universal health care.

 

~~~~~~~~~~

 

Understand the desire to have faith based views offered in public settings (abstinence from a scripture perspective, Creation).

 

Understand that people do not want public funds used for religious information/training.

 

What *I* don't get is the decades long history of not understanding the fact that thinking, wise, loving, respectful, believing, kind and researched people can and do fall on completely opposite sides of divisive issues.

 

I'm not a fan of Gloria, her history or the history of organizations she's been a part of. I'm also not a fan of the world view behind many who are doing the happy dance about Palin.

 

But I get, understand and respect those who do.

[Sandy in Indy]

I can't vote for someone who kills animals from helicopters, or kills animals period

 

I'd rather vote for someone who kills animals than babies. JMO.

[Elaine]

Well, they could fall off the bed... :lol: :lol:

 

:leaving:

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[lovemyboys]

Nope, I think that's backwards.

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html

 

It seems as if the more sexual messages they are exposed to, the LESS teen pregnancies there are!!!

 

Sorry, I don't know how to do all the links, so I just copied part of this article.

 

I didn't read through all the tables. But I went to read the article because one thought occurred to me, that the abortion rates might be higher and therefore, the pregnancy rates might appear lower, which does seem to be the case, particularly, the report says, among the younger group of European teens. I don't want this to devolve into another abortion controversy, but I learned way back in Soc. 101 that one thing is not necessarily defacto cause of another just because they are related or adjacent or whatever. (There is more crime in the summer. More ice cream is eaten in the summer. Therefore, ice cream must cause crime.)

 

 

The following is excerpted from the above mentioned Guttmacher article...

 

The intended adolescent birthrate in the United States was about 18 births per 1,000 teenagers per year in the mid-1990s—a rate that is approximately twice the overall adolescent birthrate in France and Sweden, and is probably as high as or higher than the intended adolescent birthrate in Canada and Great Britain (not shown). The unintended teenage pregnancy rate in the United States (roughly 66 per 1,000 in the mid-1990s) is still substantially higher than the total pregnancy levels of the other four study countries.

 

Teenagers who experience pregnancy differ across countries in their likelihood of resolving the pregnancy by abortion (measured by the abortion ratio, which is the proportion of pregnancies that end in abortions, excluding miscarriages). In the mid-1990s, the abortion ratio for 15-19-year-olds ranged from 35 abortions per 100 pregnancies in the United States (that is, 35% of pregnancies to 15-19-year-olds were resolved by abortion) to 69 per 100 in Sweden (Table 2). The proportion of teenage pregnancies ending in abortion in Great Britain is similar to the United States (39%), while levels in Canada (46%) and France (51%) are somewhat higher, but still much lower than the level in Sweden. In France, Great Britain and Sweden, the abortion ratio is substantially higher among teenagers aged 15-17 than among those aged 18-19. This indicates that younger adolescents who become pregnant are less likely than those who are older to want to have a child at that time and to feel ready to become parents. The difference in abortion ratio between older and younger teenagers is small in Canada and minimal in the United States.

 

 

 

Again, I'm not highlighting this to start an abortion controversy, it just gives more of the picture.:)

[nakitty]

Are you being serious or sarcastic? It's hard to tell with you sometimes.

 

 

I was being serious.... If she meant "aren't" then that is a major contradiction....but if she meant "are" than that makes sense to me.... I was asking to verify before I went into a tangent on how that is a contradiction...:D

[Jenn in Mo]

They are not making any decisions for you! If your dd had an abortion at 13...that would be a choice she is making for herself....and you having a problem with that is/should be.... strictly between YOU and HER...the government should NOT have anything to do with it.

 

I am very torn on this area of the law.....because I know that *I* would be extremely upset if my dd felt she had to go through something like that without me.... HOWEVER, there are just to many 'what ifs...' and I am absolutely opposed to making *my* personal feelings about it dictate how other people chose to live their lives.

 

Wait, wait, wait.

 

Regardless of anyone's "personal feelings", it is a parent's responsibility to protect their children. We make decisions every day regarding the health of our children. That's our job. My 13 yod may strongly feel she needs a boob job. She may have very compelling reasons. She may strongly feel she needs a nose job, or a leg amputation because one legged girls are suddenly the "in" thing, or....whatever. Regardless, I am responsible for her health and it is acknowledged, in these areas, that 13 year olds are not generally emotionally and mentally mature enough to handle these decisions and the responsibility is left with the parents.

[nakitty]

I'd rather vote for someone who kills animals than babies. JMO.

 

That was uncalled for. :glare:

[LG Gone Wild]

Wait, wait, wait.

 

Regardless of anyone's "personal feelings", it is a parent's responsibility to protect their children. We make decisions every day regarding the health of our children. That's our job. My 13 yod may strongly feel she needs a boob job. She may have very compelling reasons. She may strongly feel she needs a nose job, or a leg amputation because one legged girls are suddenly the "in" thing, or....whatever. Regardless, I am responsible for her health and it is acknowledged, in these areas, that 13 year olds are not generally emotionally and mentally mature enough to handle these decisions and the responsibility is left with the parents.

 

I just read your sig. line! What a hoot!

[Jenny in Atl]

I'd rather vote for someone who kills animals than babies. JMO.

:001_huh:

[newbie]

That was uncalled for. :glare:

 

I was shocked when I read someone is hunting from helicopters, that is uncalled for. Although, I am anti hunting totally.

 

But, now I read someone is killing babies. Who, who?

[nakitty]

Wait, wait, wait.

 

Regardless of anyone's "personal feelings", it is a parent's responsibility to protect their children. We make decisions every day regarding the health of our children. That's our job. My 13 yod may strongly feel she needs a boob job. She may have very compelling reasons. She may strongly feel she needs a nose job, or a leg amputation because one legged girls are suddenly the "in" thing, or....whatever. Regardless, I am responsible for her health and it is acknowledged, in these areas, that 13 year olds are not generally emotionally and mentally mature enough to handle these decisions and the responsibility is left with the parents.

 

Ahhh....but you forget....while ITA that it IS a parents responsibility....we have to remember that not all parents are good ones....and, as a matter of ABSOLUTE fact....some parents are extremely HORRIBLE. And what if that 13 year old girl is pregnant because her Dad was horrible? Or what if her abusive Mom allowed a boyfriend access to her daughter....or what if Mom and/or Dad sold her to someone for drugs....or any number of other horrific scenarios we like to pretend are extremely rare.... they aren't all that rare...not even a little rare. No, such extreme situations aren't the #1 reason teenaged girls abort.... but it is a very real very valid reason. And *I* don't think it is right to make a young girl that has had to go through so much already....have to ask the very people that put her in such a situation to help her out of it.

[Jenn in Mo]

While I completely agree that those scenarios you mentioned are absolutely HORRIFIC and a solution needs found to protect them, this solution allows all of the little girls who have made immature decisions to be sacrificed like little front-line soldiers. They can have physical and emotional scars that last them the rest of their lives. Their health and happiness is not an acceptable loss on the basis that it allows the extreme few the opportunity to have a quick fix to an extreme problem before going back home and still in a very dangerous situation.

 

 

 

(I won't be able to jump back on the board until tonight, just letting you know so that my not-posting for a while won't appear rude.)

[nakitty]

While I completely agree that those scenarios you mentioned are absolutely HORRIFIC and a solution needs found to protect them, this solution allows all of the little girls who have made immature decisions to be sacrificed like little front-line soldiers. They can have physical and emotional scars that last them the rest of their lives. Their health and happiness is not an acceptable loss on the basis that it allows the extreme few the opportunity to have a quick fix to an extreme problem before going back home and still in a very dangerous situation.

 

 

 

(I won't be able to jump back on the board until tonight, just letting you know so that my not-posting for a while won't appear rude.)

 

BUT....your daughter(s) and mine have the benefit of having loving mothers that will be able to teach them our values and be there for them to love and support them unconditionally.....girls that are fortunate enough to have such supportive parents are not very likely to have the need to attain an abortion without parental consent. Another example, albeit completely different (yet still pertinent)... would be the decision to homeschool... most homeschoolers desire the government to stay out of our business in regards to how we choose to educate our children.....yet HS opponents often argue that without gov't involvement too many children can/do slip through the cracks and don't receive a proper education. Yes, they are correct....and that DOES happen....statistically, I don't know how often it happens...but I do know, from seeing it personally, that it DOES happen. BUT, should we all have to be required to jump through a ton of hoops just for the right to HS? Or should it be addressed on an as needed basis? People would be so much better off to just take care of their own business and to deal with ACTUAL problems as they come along....not create laws that inconvenience/punish everyone just to appease their own way of thinking.

 

 

I hope that all made sense....I am in a rush...I have to go run errands...LOL

 

So, *I* won't be on until later tonight either!:D

[LizzyBee]

Was this a mis-type? Did you mean that they ARE going against their principles?

 

Mrs. Mungo said that conservatives don't use certain types of bc because of their belief that these methods may end a life. I thought LG was responding to say that many conservatives do use these methods without violating their principles. IOW, conservatives do not all agree on the issue. IME, I'd think that many more conservatives use bcps than are trying to ban them. Heck, I've never even heard of anyone trying to ban bc until reading it on these boards.

 

OTOH, I could be totally misinterpreting LG's intent.

[Mrs Mungo]

Mrs. Mungo said that conservatives don't use certain types of bc because of their belief that these methods may end a life. I thought LG was responding to say that many conservatives do use these methods without violating their principles. IOW, conservatives do not all agree on the issue. IME, I'd think that many more conservatives use bcps than are trying to ban them. Heck, I've never even heard of anyone trying to ban bc until reading it on these boards.

 

OTOH, I could be totally misinterpreting LG's intent.

 

Well, she was also under the impression that the BCP would not prevent implantation. There was definitely the implication that *only* methods that would *not* prevent the implantation of a blastocyst were acceptable according to conservative principles (that's why most were barrier methods). I did agree with you that not *all* conservatives share those principles.

[LizzyBee]

Well, she was also under the impression that the BCP would not prevent implantation. There was definitely the implication that *only* methods that would *not* prevent the implantation of a blastocyst were acceptable according to conservative principles (that's why most were barrier methods).

 

Ah, so maybe she had a faulty assumption and that's why her post could be taken as contradictory.

 

I did agree with you that not *all* conservatives share those principles.

 

I know, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just explaining how I interpreted LG's post based on the flow of conversation just before hers. :)