Jamie and Juno alarm feminists

Tell me again feminists are pro-"choice" and not pro-abortion. Tell me again they don't push abortion.

Clearly the feminist community prefers mothers in unplanned or crisis pregnancies abort. What an odd turn of events if girls have decided to listen to only half their message: have sex like rabbits but not abort the bunnies?

jamie%20smile.jpgIf this is indeed a cultural shift, eugenicist Margaret Sanger will turn over in her grave. Her scheme will have backfired.

From The Star, December 20:

Could something as unglamorous as an unplanned pregnancy be Hollywood's latest hot trend?

Earlier this week, Jamie Lynn Spears, the 16-year-old sister of Britney Spears, said she was expecting and plans to keep the baby.

She's hardly alone. Lily Allen, Nicole Richie, Bridget Moynahan and Keisha Castle-Hughes are among the young stars who have recently announced surprise babies.

(Let's take a quiz. How many of the aforementioned were products of comprehensive sex ed vs. abstinence ed?)...

And two of the year's biggest movies, Juno and Knocked Up, deal with the same issue....

(Same quiz of movie characters.)

For some pro-choice advocates, the proud parade of surprise pregnancies is a cause for concern.

"It certainly shows any young women watching these movies or following these celebrities that the best option is to have the baby and it glorifies that choice," Joyce McArthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada said Thursday....

(It was glorified throughout human history until McArthur's s ilk began degrading it so as to make women into men, their definition of equality, oh, and also to make scads of money - millions, billions.)

"Single motherhood, for the average teenaged girl, is just about the least glamorous thing you can possibly imagine," McArthur said. "It's very, very difficult. There is just so much evidence out there to show the poor results from teenagers having babies, just all sorts of social ills for both the mothers and for the children."

(Pro-lifers agree. But while McArthur solely promotes abortion as the solution, we promote abstinence, high-quality self child-rearing, or adoption. Which of those 4 is the least healthy choice?)

The apparently burgeoning trend has everyone from pro-choice activists like McArthur to feminist journalists and those in the blogosphere wondering about the conspicuous absence of a common option for women, both real and fictional, who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant: abortion.
keisha2.jpg
In Juno... the teenaged title character only gives abortion passing consideration.

"The old-school feminist in me wishes Juno spent more time, even a tart sentence or two, acknowledging that the options taken for granted by this one attractive, articulate teen are in fact hard-won, precious rights," Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly wrote in her review of the film.

Others fear the success of Juno might even influence teenaged girls who find themselves pregnant....

(What's wrong with that, for heaven's sake? The author admits the other side discourages carrying a crisis pregnancy to term.)

McArthur says she found it disappointing that in Knocked Up, in particular, abortion was barely mentioned as an option - and when it was, it was presented as something too shameful to even ponder.

"It is Hollywood, I know, and Hollywood specializes in being unrealistic about things in general," she said.

"But it's just sort of being totally ignored as though no one would ever even think of doing that. But abortion is a very commonly resorted-to option for women, especially unmarried teenaged girls. It should be acknowledged that it's an important and common option for women and, more importantly, that there's nothing wrong with making that choice."

On the Feministe blog, one commenter bemoaned how rarely a woman's decision to abort a fetus is explored in the movies....

Hollywood may say abortion is politically correct, but by its action it shows that even there, it really is not. Hollywood risks losing money making movies about other countercultural topics like the war, but not so with abortion. It's too disgusting for even them.


Comments:

Clearly the feminist community prefers mothers in unplanned or crisis pregnancies abort. What an odd turn of events if girls have decided to listen to only half their message: have sex like rabbits but not abort the bunnies?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The teen pregnancy rate declined 30% between 1990 and 2000 WITHOUT a rise in the abortion rate, and the worst recorded year for teen pregnancy in America was 1958.

Jill, "free love," an expression you often use, died in 1983 with the end of Disco and the arrival of the plague. Better access to birth control and a shift towards monogamy - along with the fear of oozing lesions and slow, lingering death - have changed the whole game.
You need to get out more...

Posted by: Laura at December 26, 2007 9:28 AM


Funny, you seem to have left out a few facts about teen motherhood:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The hardships of teen pregnancy

By Cindy Reitzi

April 2005

It takes a village to raise a child. -- African proverb

Teaching hinges on hope. Without hope for our students’ future, teaching is minute by minute. And few things siphon my hopes like teen motherhood.

Most of us live in a single to nuclear family culture: no extended family or “village” and scarce affordable daycare. Considering this, the statistical portrait of teen mothers is depressing, beginning at birth.

Babies of teen mothers have 21% higher probability of low birth weight, increasing possibilities for infant death, blindness, deafness, chronic respiratory problems, mental retardation, mental illness, and cerebral palsy. It doubles chances for dyslexia, hyperactivity, and other disabilities.1

Teen mothers are often victims of abuse. As Kathleen Sylvester, vice president for domestic policy of the Progressive Policy Institute, wrote: “Some studies show… as many as two-thirds were victims of rape or sexual abuse at an early age – crimes often committed by males living in the same household. ... They are easy prey for older men: young…victims of early sexual abuse often develop emotional patterns that make them vulnerable to the attentions of older men.”2 A 1995 Guttmacher Institute study suggests that almost two-thirds of the fathers of the babies are 20 or older.

The younger the girl, the more likely sex was forced. Four in 10 girls whose first intercourse was at 13 to 14 report sex was unwanted.1

Teen mothers start parenthood with few viable economic skills. Forty-one percent of mothers under 18 finish high school, compared to 61% of 20- to 21-year-old first mothers. A scant 1.5% of teen mothers earn a college degree by age 30.1

Making matters worse, in the past 25 years, the median income for college graduates increased 13%, while the median income for high school dropouts decreased 30%.1

Frighteningly, babies of high school dropouts have an eight times higher risk of being killed than those of college graduates.3

Teen mothers are mostly single parents. Eighty percent of fathers do not marry mothers and pay less than $800 annually in child support, important income for poor children.

Children living apart from fathers are five times more likely to be poor than children from two-parent homes. Children of uninvolved fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, abuse alcohol or drugs or go to jail, and four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.1

So, if teen mothers have no functional family of origin, no “village” to rely on, all parenting responsibilities fall on young girls who received little nurturing themselves. It’s no surprise they turn to welfare. One-half of all teen mothers and more than three-quarters of unmarried teen mothers receive welfare within five years of their first child’s birth.1

While on paper, married, two-parent families sound like stabilizing alternatives, chances of marital success are slim. Only 30% of married teen mothers stay married. Teen marriages are twice as likely to fail as marriages in which the woman is at least 25 years old.1 Plus, studies of welfare mothers suggest some teen moms may be better off unmarried for safety reasons. According to Esta Soler, president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, “Studies consistently show that at least 50% to 60% of women receiving welfare have experienced physical abuse by an intimate partner…compared to 22% of the general population… A significant number of women receiving welfare also report a history of physical and sexual abuse in childhood.” In a California study, some recipients report lifetime abuse rates of 80% to 83%.4

While the absence of a caring father has profound consequences for children, the presence of an abusive one may be a matter of life or death. All of these factors take a toll on children. Teen parents are twice as likely as older parents to abuse or neglect their children.5 In reported incidents of abuse and neglect, 100 per 1,000 were families headed by teen mothers. The rate is less than half in families with new mothers in their 20s: 51 incidents per 1,000 families.1 Foster care placement is also significantly higher for children of teen mothers.1

Children of teenagers, then, come to school with baggage and consequently perform poorly. They are 50% more likely to repeat a grade, do worse on standardized tests, and are less likely to complete high school than if their mothers had delayed childbearing. Sons of teen mothers are 13% more likely to end up in prison; daughters, 22% more likely to also become teen mothers.1

But dismal statistics do not account for intangibles: persistent mother love, “villages” of grandmothers, caring teachers and teen moms in school, trying to graduate. If we as educators can help keep the mothers strong, I have better hopes that their children may thrive.

Sources:

National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. www.teenpregnancy.org


“What to Do with Those Teenage Mothers,” Kathleen Sylvester. www.ppionline.org


“A Horror Called 'Neonaticide'," Charles Downey. http://sks.sirs.com


Testimony, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Esta Soler. http://endabuse.org


University of Georgia. www.county.ces.uga.edu
Posted April 1, 2005

Posted by: Laura at December 26, 2007 9:45 AM


Laura,

It also should be mentioned that abortion may have contributed to 30% decline in teens pregnancies.

There is no hard evidence at all that teens pregnancies declined because of birth control. If some one could examine the numbers of contraception used and teen abortions performed, we may have much different story.

Me and my wife are going to see Juno today. Finally a breath of fresh air.

Posted by: Vlad at December 26, 2007 9:50 AM


(Off-Topic)
Did anyone show up at that contractor's house to protest yesterday? I can't find a story.

Posted by: Laura at December 26, 2007 9:52 AM


I don't see it as a big deal. Pro-Choicers are for these young women being free to make their best choice in the matter, whatever it is.

Posted by: Doug at December 26, 2007 10:36 AM


Laura,

It also should be mentioned that abortion may have contributed to 30% decline in teens pregnancies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, abortion actually declined 1990-2000, as the teen pregnancy rate dropped 30%

Posted by: Laura at December 26, 2007 10:47 AM


The "big deal" is that some self-proclaimed pro-choicers feel the abortion choice is not given the same glory in Entertainment Land as the Life choice.

I love it when they get hot and bothered. It means we're doing something right.

Posted by: carder at December 26, 2007 10:49 AM


Wasn't The Cider House Rules about abortion?
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0124315/

So there's one for the pro-choicers, anyway....

Carder's right. The real story here is that Hollywood -- a town packed with pro-choicers -- doesn't make more movies (or TV shows) in which unplanned pregnancies are deposited in medical waste bags. Why not?

Here's my theory: Hollywood loves a happy ending. Even among many pro-choicers, abortion is not a happy ending. Therefore, Hollywood won't "go there" very often.

Posted by: Naaman at December 26, 2007 10:59 AM


Yeah - I don't say that abortion is "happy." Certainly not necessarily so without qualifying it - but sometimes it's still the best thing for a given woman to do.

"Entertainment Land" is one thing, and there I'd say that Jamie et al have vastly more resources - money, people to help, etc., than does the avergage teen mother.

If somebody in the entertainment industry is worried about "glorification" one way or the other then I say Oh Well.... I wouldn't worry about that before I'd be concerned with young women having access to all information.

Doug

Posted by: Anonymous at December 26, 2007 11:27 AM


Is it just me, or is there something wrong with the above picture?
Who drags a baby's bare skin over sequins?

(I realize this is trivial, but who DOES that?)

Posted by: Laura at December 26, 2007 11:58 AM


Juno is edgy and pushed the envelope for this grammy
but my husband and I were teary at the film's end and
delighted at the positive affirmation for Life!

What a beautiful choice.

Posted by: lesforlife at December 26, 2007 12:23 PM


Who drags a baby's bare skin over sequins?

Laura, those wacky "Hollywood" people....

That baby seems to be latching onto the sequins pretty well - maybe there's some rock-climbing in the future there.

Posted by: Doug at December 26, 2007 12:26 PM


Laura,

I would really like to see the source of your claim. The reason that I am skeptical about your numbers is that it was not until early 90's that some of the states began to collect the data on abortion.

Take for example New Jersey. 1991 was the first year that the NJ Department of health began to publish some numbers.

What I am saying we do not have enough data to compare 1990-2000 to the preceding decade.

Posted by: Vlad at December 26, 2007 12:35 PM


I will never get over the stupidity of EITHER side of this debate getting worked up over

FICTIONAL


MOVIES

Not all movies, probably not even half, are written with any intended message. They are written to be touching, amusing, entertaining, a 2 hour escape from reality, etc. If any of the characters in these movies had abortions, the movie would be 10 minutes long, and the actress would miss a prime piece of acting experience - a labor scene, complete with the OH SO REALISTIC giving birth of a 3 month old baby who is pink and wide-eyed.


As for using bazillionare celebrities as poster-women for "crisis pregnancies"? Come on now... thats beyond a stretch. Do you REALLY think Jamie Lynn Spears represents the average 16 year old girl in any way?

Posted by: Amanda at December 26, 2007 1:23 PM


Those "feminists" are not pro-choice, they are definately pro-abortion.

Complaining that abortion doesn't get more airtime? Just sick!

Posted by: prettyinpink at December 26, 2007 2:19 PM


Have to agree with Amanda over the people getting worked up over fictional movies.

More like complaining that abortion doesn't get equal airtime. Here read this and you might understand:

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/29/abortion1.html

Posted by: LillyFoot at December 26, 2007 2:29 PM


Have to agree with Amanda over the people getting worked up over fictional movies.

More like complaining that abortion doesn't get equal airtime. Here read this and you might understand:

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/29/abortion1.html

If Jamie Lynn Spears represents the 16 year old girls of today we have a serious problem and what is to blame? Abstinence only education, or the myth that marriage protects.

Posted by: LillyFoot at December 26, 2007 2:30 PM


LillyFoot queried:
If Jamie Lynn Spears represents the 16 year old girls of today we have a serious problem and what is to blame? Abstinence only education, or the myth that marriage protects.

Quick, by show of hands: Who really believes that any member of the Spears family represents an average person?

Anyone? Anyone at all? No? I didn't think so.

That was so much fun, let's try another poll: Who really believes that the Spears girls were raised to value abstinence?

...

It seems to me that these arguments are strawmen.

Anyway, I'm not "worked up" about Hollywood's peculiar prohibition of abortion in their screenplays. Honestly, I don't get very "worked up" about much of anything that Hollywood does. They're the most isolated, irrelevant, out-of-touch group of people since the Sun King's court in pre-revolution France. Phooey on them all.

I do think that it's interesting that some of the most pro-choice people in America don't manage to give us more positive abortion portrayals in movies and TV. It's interesting to me because I think it reveals something deep about abortion. Not even the most ardent pro-choice cheerleaders in the country can manage to make abortion into a happy ending.

Even if you believe abortion should remain legal, it's still a bad thing.

So that leads to the next question: Why is abortion a bad thing? If abortion is truly nothing more than the removal of some meaningless tissue, then what's wrong with it? Other medical procedures can bring a happy ending ... why not abortion?

Posted by: Naaman at December 26, 2007 4:00 PM


We have to keep in mind that these celebrity single mothers have plenty of financial security, a father in the picture, and a lot of help. Your average teen mother doesn't have a 7 figure bank account, around the clock nannies, a household staff, a personal assistant, and a chauffer.
And you certainly won't see Nicole Richie or Keisha Castle Hughes sitting in a crowded ER waiting room with a sick baby at 2am or standing in line at the local welfare office.
These are the circumstances so many single mothers end up in, teens and young women who may be easily influenced by these celebrities into the notion that illegitimacy is glamorous and easy.
We do have to be concerned about the message that is sent to these young girls because I am telling you from experience, its not a good one and is having serious consequences.
We have a fit if celebrities smoke or abuse drugs. What message are they sending? OK, what message is the celebrity with a child out of wedlock sending?
Sadly these teens and young women do not see the difference between their circumstances and that of a celebrity, they only see what to them looks glamorous and romantic.
I am pro-life and in no way support aborting any of these children. I maintain that abortion never has and never will solve this problem. I have an issue with celebrities, who, whether they like it or not, are role models. They chose the celebrity life, and with it comes some responsibility. Our society can't promote and glamorize illegitimacy, and then cry about its consequences and costs, both human and financial.

Posted by: Mary at December 26, 2007 4:19 PM


Laura,
First of all, the baby looks beautiful and very comfortable even on sequins. In fact, I'd say that baby is a very content child. I can't believe you're worried about the sequins hurting the baby yet the alternative would have been having it's limbs ripped off at 3 months via an abortion.
Secondly, since when was there a movement towards monogamy! You must mean serial monogamy!
I think these young girls are realizing that abortion is a choice that is self-destructive. The message is starting to get out to our daughters that abortion hurts women.

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 4:26 PM


"Not even the most ardent pro-choice cheerleaders in the country can manage to make abortion into a happy ending."

Abortion must certainly has a happy ending, just not very dramatic or interesting. "A woman terminates her pregnancy and continues her education or profession and has a normal and happy life." Not that exciting, but it happens thousands of times every week. The woman I know who had abortions are having very happy lives.

Posted by: Hal at December 26, 2007 4:56 PM


Funny thing Hal, that's not what I hear from psychiatrists, priests and social workers. In fact, post-abortion syndrome now is recognized as having an effect on men too. Maybe the women you know are pathological.....

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 6:04 PM


maybe the psychiatrists, priests, and social workers you know have an agenda?

Posted by: Hal at December 26, 2007 6:24 PM


yes, it's called helping people heal from trauma

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 6:33 PM


the trauma of killing their unborn offspring...

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 6:34 PM


hmmm. From Wikipedia:

Post-abortion syndrome (PAS), post-traumatic abortion syndrome and abortion trauma syndrome, are terms used to describe a set of adverse psychopathological characteristics which are proposed to occur in a small percentage of women following an induced abortion.[1] Primarily a term used by pro-life advocates,[2][3][4] PAS is not a medically recognized syndrome,[5] and neither the American Psychological Association nor American Psychiatric Association recognize it. Some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that PAS is a myth created by opponents of abortion for political purposes.[6][7][8]

A number of studies have concluded that abortion has positive or neutral effects on women's psychological well-being. While some studies have found a correlation between clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, or adverse effects on women's sexual functions and abortion, these correlations are explained by preexisting social and psychological conditions and not caused by biological consequences of abortion. According to the APA, various factors, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of support, and conservative views on abortions, may increase the likelihood of experiencing such feelings. No studies have established a causal relationship between abortion and negative psychological symptoms experienced by women.

Posted by: Hal at December 26, 2007 6:40 PM


"Clearly the feminist community prefers mothers in unplanned or crisis pregnancies abort. What an odd turn of events if girls have decided to listen to only half their message: have sex like rabbits but not abort the bunnies?"

I actually know someone who is a feminist and very torn between being pro-life and pro-choice. Morally they'd like to think of themselves as pro-life. But the other part of them also believes in the womens choice. I don't really think they identify themselves as either. But I haven't talk to them about it in awhile.

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 6:55 PM


"If any of the characters in these movies had abortions, the movie would be 10 minutes long, "

Amanda, I disagree,the movie which had an abortion probably would have to be a very sad and tragic movie, there would no other way to dress it up.

Posted by: jasper at December 26, 2007 6:58 PM


Well, I wouldn't be going to the APA or the American Psychological Association to determine whether or not this is a valid medical condition. After all, both organizations have be hijacked by liberal thinkers with a social agenda in the area of mental health. Aside from that, as a reference librarian, I don't consider wikipedia an authoritative medical resource either. Perhaps this link will be of more help:http://www.afterabortion.org/ David Reardon is a well known researcher on the effects of abortion.
This might also help:
http://silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/index.html
By the way, I don't know many priests who go out and recruit people so they can push their agenda on them. Usually people COME to them because they finally realize that what they are going through cannot be resolved by anyone but that bigger then themselves - namely God.

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 6:59 PM


"By the way, I don't know many priests who go out and recruit people so they can push their agenda on them"

Priests don't needs to "go out" and "recruit" they have their congregation do it for them.

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 7:03 PM


I don't consider wikepedia authoritative either, but they have footnotes to real scientific journals. I haven't taken the time to follow the trail.

I don't think Priests are reecuiting people, but I'm sure they're not saying "don't worry about that abortion, I'm sure it was the best choice you had a the time." They're saying something a bit different I imgaine.

Posted by: Hal at December 26, 2007 7:05 PM


David Reardon is a well known researcher on the effects of abortion.

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 6:59 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Dr." David Reardon has a PhD in Bioethics from Pacific Western University - a diploma mill with no faculty and no actual facility. His "Elliot Institute" is also a PO Box with no actual facility.
For $2500.00 YOU TOO can have a doctorate JUST LIKE DAVID REARDON.
Here's a nice article about the quack/liar:
http://nerofiddled.blogspot.com/2005_07_19_archive.html

Posted by: Laura at December 26, 2007 7:08 PM


Actually, most priests I know "listen" and "pray". Any priest will tell you they have an intense compassion for a man or woman who has experience abortion. The hurt is so evident, it deserves all that at the very least. Catholics do not recruit (I can't speak for other denominations). A true Catholic will lead by example.
As for the research, that's just my point Hal, take the time to become informed on what is REALLY involved in an abortion - go a little deeper. You know the saying, Ignorance is bliss. But not quite in this instance... for many people.

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 7:12 PM


Laura, as it's been mentioned before, Reardon has three Ph.D's. Not just one. Please give me the information on what the other PH.D's are in. The second is only claimed to be Electronic Engineering, by a pro-abortion supporter, so I do not know if it is true or not. Find me a reference that is not biased against him based on his position on abortion. David Reardon is is not a fraud. He is not a liar. the conclusions of many of his studies are even confirmed by pro-choice athiests.
For an example:
http://www.afterabortion.info/news/Fergusson.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16405636&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Also, Reardon has published his articles in MANY peer reviewed journals. How could he do this if he were not legitimate?

By the way, please see the definition of institute...educate yourself:

http://www.answers.com/topic/institute?cat=biz-fin

Posted by: Bethany at December 26, 2007 7:22 PM


"waves*

Hi Bethany!!

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 7:23 PM


Hi JM! :) How have you been? :) Did you have a happy Christmas?

Posted by: Bethany at December 26, 2007 7:25 PM


Nice try Laura. I hope Laura, you took the time to read the post at the bottom of the nerofiddled post on Dr. Reardon. I have no doubt as to the quality of his degree because as he quite correctly points out, an education at an unaccredited university really means very little in today's academia. I have 2 graduate degrees from accredited universities here in Canada (one in advanced sciences) and I can tell you neither has been particularly efficacious to either my personal or professional development. Sometimes a very good education may be wrought through a newer, unaccredited institution which offers the possiblity of critical thought unencumbered by liberal agendas and political correctness. I have found the latter tends to lead to intellectual constipation - the inability to actually think and endeavour to find the truth of a matter (please don't tell me that there is none!).

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 7:25 PM


Laura, as it's been mentioned before, Reardon has three Ph.D's. Not just one. Please give me the information on what the other PH.D's are in.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Uh, YOU'RE making that claim, you prove it.
Read the article. Even REARDON admits that his PhD is Bioethics is from a diploma mill. The man is a total fraud.

Posted by: Laura at December 26, 2007 7:26 PM


Bethany,

I did. I got a beautiful diamond necklace!! My brother was also in town with his girlfriend. We got 12 inches of snow while they were here.

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 7:28 PM


Thanks Bethany for the PubMed link. I didn't even bother with that resource (no time!). Dr. Reardon's research is becoming more mainstream as is the work of other prolife researchers who are actively seeking out the truth of abortion (for example the breast cancer/abortion link).
Hal and Laura can stick their collective heads in the sand if they so desire but it doesn't change a thing. Abortion hurts women and kills babies. Period.

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 7:28 PM


Okay, Laura. All you have to do is tell me what the date was that he got his Electronic Engineering Ph.D. Tell me what year that was.

Posted by: Bethany at December 26, 2007 7:30 PM


Patricia, I completely agree. Thank you.

Posted by: Bethany at December 26, 2007 7:30 PM


Wow, that is wonderful, JM! I am so happy for you. Do you have a picture?
lucky you getting snow! We were wearing short sleeves today. We needed the air conditioner in the car about noon.

Posted by: Bethany at December 26, 2007 7:31 PM


Nice try Laura. I hope Laura, you took the time to read the post at the bottom of the nerofiddled post on Dr. Reardon. I have no doubt as to the quality of his degree because as he quite correctly points out, an education at an unaccredited university really means very little in today's academia. I have 2 graduate degrees from accredited universities here in Canada (one in advanced sciences) and I can tell you neither has been particularly efficacious to either my personal or professional development. Sometimes a very good education may be wrought through a newer, unaccredited institution which offers the possiblity of critical thought unencumbered by liberal agendas and political correctness. I have found the latter tends to lead to intellectual constipation - the inability to actually think and endeavour to find the truth of a matter (please don't tell me that there is none!).


I just thought it needed to be posted again. Thanks Patricia.

Posted by: Bethany at December 26, 2007 7:32 PM


Patricia, I went to an accredited college. I seem to remember a few classes where the professor was republican and "pushed his agenda" on us. Many of my teachers were usually unbiased, republican and democrat. But i found that the biased ones were more often republican.

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 7:34 PM


Bethany,

I haven't taken a picture yet, but i plan to. I'll make sure to send it to you.

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 7:36 PM


Hal and Laura,
If you'd like something a little more rigorous:
Women's Health after Abortion: the medical and psychological evidence.
By Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles.
You can read the entire publication for free here:
http://www.deveber.org/publications2.html
Click on the cover.
The researchers on this website have impeccable credentials.

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 7:38 PM


Bethany,
It was actually really cute. Dan pretended to get me earmuffs. Wrapped those up and made sure that it was the last present I opened. Then my family (they were all "in on it") acted like we were finished opening gifts. Then Dan pulls out another box and there it was. My family wouldn't stop laughing at me because all did for like an hour was look at it in the mirror.

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 7:39 PM


That is definitely a memory you will cherish for years and years, JM. How sweet!

Posted by: Bethany at December 26, 2007 7:41 PM


Well JM,
I just finished another Masters at a university in Canada and I am appalled at the state of things in the classroom. It's been 20 years since I completed my last degree and what a change.Students are terrified to speak out against the bombastic preachings of the liberal professors. People need references for jobs etc. You don't dare go against the pro-abortion/homosexual mindset on campus. Even those in well placed positions follow the political correctness. Like lemmings to the sea...

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 7:43 PM


Bethany,

Yep my first diamond ever! There are actually a lot of diamonds on the necklace. Its a tiny heart with little diamonds wrapped around the heart.

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 7:44 PM


Patrica,

Thats just strange to me. Oh the debates and great conversations I had in my classes. No one was afraid to say anything. Liberals or conservatives. We had speakers come to our campus to speak to the students that were both liberal and conservative. We had a club called "college of republicans" and a club called "college of democrats" We had open forums about religion. When my campus showed Fahrenheit 9/11 they also showed Michael Moore hates America. Would a college with a "liberal agenda" do all that?

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 7:51 PM


I should say that I graduated in December of 06. A year ago.

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 7:54 PM


And when you say "you don't dare go against the pro-abortion/homosexual mindset on campus."

I'd like to touch on the homosexual part. I am sure when the civil rights movement was going on there were several people who "didn't dare go against" the civil rights movement. You might say the two are totally different but I disagree.

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 7:58 PM


Ah, JM. You may not know but I live in CANADA. We don't have free speech here. You have your 1st Amendment. We have our hate tribunals. One must be VERY CAREFUL. As Mark Steyn is learning.

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 8:05 PM


Laura,

It also should be mentioned that abortion may have contributed to 30% decline in teens pregnancies.

Posted by: Vlad at December 26, 2007 9:50 AM
...........................................................

A teen would need to be pregnant to have a pregnancy ended. Abortion prevents possible teen parenthood, not pregnancy.

Posted by: Sally at December 26, 2007 8:05 PM


Laura, as it's been mentioned before, Reardon has three Ph.D's. Not just one. Please give me the information on what the other PH.D's are in. The second is only claimed to be Electronic Engineering, by a pro-abortion supporter, so I do not know if it is true or not. Find me a reference that is not biased against him based on his position on abortion. David Reardon is is not a fraud. He is not a liar. the conclusions of many of his studies are even confirmed by pro-choice athiests.
For an example:
http://www.afterabortion.info/news/Fergusson.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16405636&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Also, Reardon has published his articles in MANY peer reviewed journals. How could he do this if he were not legitimate?

By the way, please see the definition of institute...educate yourself:

http://www.answers.com/topic/institute?cat=biz-fin

Posted by: Bethany at December 26, 2007 7:22 PM
...................................................................

Q: What is a peer-reviewed journal?

A: A scholarly periodical which requires that each article submitted for publication be judged by an independent panel of experts (scholarly or scientific peers). Articles not approved by a majority of these peers are not accepted for publication by the journal.

Do site what peer reviewed journals Reardon has been published in.

Posted by: Sally at December 26, 2007 8:20 PM


Sometimes a very good education may be wrought through a newer, unaccredited institution which offers the possiblity of critical thought unencumbered by liberal agendas and political correctness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pacific Western University has NO campus and NO faculty. Them year he claims to have eaned his PhD, the dump didn't even offer a degree in Bioethics.
It's not an "unaccredited institution," it's a diploma mill.

Posted by: Laura at December 26, 2007 8:21 PM


Patricia,

I'm just pointing out that not all schools have a "liberal agenda" that you speak of.

Posted by: JM at December 26, 2007 8:23 PM


Sally, 8:05pm

Not necessarily. You have no idea how many of these girls I have seen pregnant again, and again, until they finally have a baby.
I well remember the teenage girl who had a miscarrage, less than 6 weeks after having an abortion.

Posted by: Mary at December 26, 2007 8:41 PM


Yes, JM you may very well be correct. However, I think most higher institutions of learning in Canada have lost their ability to provide students with the skills to critically think. They no longer encourage students to seek the truth. They have become bastions of political correctness. This is why for example Memorial University in Newfoundland, considered a very good university in many disciplines, will not allow a prolife group on campus. If you can't have both sides of the debate represented, a form of totalitarianism exists. An entire set of students becomes disenfranchised because they don't have the "accepted" view. This is the intolerance of the liberal mindset.
Laura, I don't know about PWU, but I do know that Dr. Reardon's work research is corroborated by many other researchers with outstanding credentials. Unfortunately, as in many medical issues that become politicized, the establishment is very slow to accept the deleterious effects of abortion on women (and men). But the proof is in the fact of the many women and men who are now coming forward with their abortion stories and how their abortions unravelled their lives. There are probably many, many women who will never reveal the inner turmoil they've experienced simply because it's too painful to do so. Your refusal to acknowledge their pain adds to their hurt. Take a walk on the wild side; talk to someone who's undergone this pain and tell them to their face that what they've experienced doesn't exist. I've been there when women have come out of an abortion clinic, in physical and emotional agony. It's something I will never forget.

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 8:44 PM


I fully agree Patricia.

Posted by: jasper at December 26, 2007 8:48 PM


Patricia, I go to the University of Waterloo...in Canada...and I live here too.
I have NEVER in my life had ANY of my teachers or professors try to push ANY agenda on us whatsoever...and that's in science classes (bio, chem and physics...) and in the arts classes (psychology and sociology).

And, I don't know where in Canada you're in, but every Canadian I know and live with and go to school with believes in free speech.

As for the "pro-abortion/homosexual mindset" and that students are "terrified to speak out against the bombastic preachings of the liberal professors", I really need to know what school you are going to.
Seriously, I have been to every university in Southern Ontario, and I have yet to see this anywhere.

Oh, and one more thing. Every person at my school (including the professors) that are actively participating in political clubs or events are those who are religious (either Christian/Catholic or Islamic). And they are all prolife.

Posted by: Jodes at December 26, 2007 8:59 PM


Oh, and I find it rather insulting that you think that students in university are so terrified of their professors and their opinions that we couldn't even fathom to think of speaking up against them.

Posted by: Jodes at December 26, 2007 9:03 PM


There has been a concerted effort over the past few years to drum up charges of oppression of conservatives in the academy. It doesn't matter whether it's true, as many of these stories can't be corroborated in any way. It just matters that people hear it, time and time again, so that eventually any expression of opinion that's not right-wing, any challenging of even the most obviously false conservative orthodoxy such as creationism, is second-guessed and attacked so much that it's just not worth the trouble.

At least, that's what they did with the so-called liberal media. As more universities become "run like businesses" (an absolutely deplorable trend), they may cave like the corporate news media did, in order not to alienate the customers who scream the loudest.

ObTopic: the pro-choice community must be terrified when they look at the polling data and see that young people are more likely to be pro-life than older generations. I would point out that they're also more likely to be pro-gay-rights and nonreligious, so it's not that we're raising a new generation of conservative Christians either.

Posted by: Jen R at December 26, 2007 9:20 PM


Jodes
I can tell you that I sat in a class of graduate students and when an issue of homosexuality came up, not one student who held an opposing view (and there were a few) would speak up. It's suicide to do so. It's now considered hate speech in Canada. For crying out loud, we are even jailing preachers who are reading passages from the Bible!
I also know that several workers in my department did not openly avow that they were "conservative" and we celebrated Stephen Harpers victory quietly since there was much vocal opposition. I seen professors mocking Harper as a Bible thumping red-neck because he has certain views. Jodes, it's been like this for a long long time in Canada's universities. The difference is that in the '80's students could have an opposing viewpoint. It's much riskier to do so now. Look at how UWO dealt with the whole Morgentaler situation in '05. The campus was swarming with SWAT the night before convocation just in case those violent prolifers showed up. Even Morgentaler himself stated the university over-reacted.

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 9:20 PM


jodes, you haven'y been around much:

Horowitz argues that U.S. universities are permeated by anti-Americanism and a left-wing bias. The academics described in The Professors are allegedly the worst offenders, but also only the tip of the iceberg. The bookflap says, "We all know that left-wing radicals from the 1960s have hung around academia and hired people like themselves. But if you thought they were all harmless, antiquated hippies, you'd be wrong. Today's radical academics aren't the exception—they're legion. And far from being harmless, they spew violent anti-Americanism, preach anti-Semitism, and cheer on the killing of American soldiers and civilians—all the while collecting tax dollars and tuition fees to indoctrinate our children." Horowitz extensively quotes from the professors concerned, and argues that two controversies involving Lawrence Summers of Harvard show that the administrators dare not challenge the radicals.

Posted by: jasper at December 26, 2007 9:20 PM


Jen -> thats baloney. David Horowitz has studied this extensively.

Posted by: jasper at December 26, 2007 9:23 PM


Oh ya, Jasper you're right on that account too. In Canada, most academics sit and mock America. America may do some things wrong, but at least your country is TRYING! The liberals in my country say, "We support our troops, but not the War!@" What the hell does that mean anyhow? Do they think that makes our troops feel great!
THe liberals are LEGION in our universities.

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 9:24 PM


"In Canada, most academics sit and mock America."

In America, most academics sit and mock America.

LOL!

Posted by: jasper at December 26, 2007 9:27 PM


Yeah, I'm aware of Horowitz's "study".

Posted by: Jen R at December 26, 2007 9:28 PM


I'm outta here. Gotta go to work tomorrow!
God Bless,

Posted by: Patricia at December 26, 2007 9:32 PM


I remember in my college history class, my professor went on and on one day about how bad the non-liberal newspaper in our city was, and how we should buy the other newspaper (the one with the liberal agenda which disliked Ronald Reagan so much.)

Posted by: jasper at December 26, 2007 9:35 PM


The liberals in my country say, "We support our troops, but not the War!@" What the hell does that mean anyhow?

Is that a rhetorical question, or can you really not see what someone could possibly mean by that?

Posted by: Jen R at December 26, 2007 9:47 PM


Patricia, I am in school...right now...and again, I don't know where you are going/went to school, but that's not how it is here.

And again, I don't know about American universities, but it's not the same here.

I have never heard my professors even mention any politics, Canadian or American (the exception would obviously be the poli-sci classes).

I think the topic of the beginning of life came up once in Developmental Psychology, and that was when my professor said "And we of course count life beginning at birthday...hence the birthday celebration"....and there was a student who raised their hand and said something along the lines of "I think that it is rude for you to say that because there are people in this room who will argue that life starts at conception."
Instead of arguing, or lecturing, or debating, or trying to change the persons opinion, simply said "In this class, we only deal with the development of born individuals, so you may be correct, but it won't be an issue, as it won't be tested."

Please, someone, where is this professor trying to "push his agenda?" Sounds to me he is simply stating that for the purposes of the class, we will be dealing with the development from birth on.

I think it's strange that people think that because a professor has a belief, that they will be pushing it on their students. I honestly don't know people like that...with 1 exception, and I know not all religious people are like this, but the only people I know who try to push their beliefs on me are Christians and Catholics and Protestants.

Posted by: Jodes at December 26, 2007 10:03 PM


Laura,

It also should be mentioned that abortion may have contributed to 30% decline in teens pregnancies.

Posted by: Vlad at December 26, 2007 9:50 AM
...........................................................

A teen would need to be pregnant to have a pregnancy ended. Abortion prevents possible teen parenthood, not pregnancy.

Posted by: Sally at December 26, 2007 8:05 PM

Sally, 8:05pm

Not necessarily. You have no idea how many of these girls I have seen pregnant again, and again, until they finally have a baby.
I well remember the teenage girl who had a miscarrage, less than 6 weeks after having an abortion.

Posted by: Mary at December 26, 2007 8:41 PM
.................................................

Huh? One cannot end a pregnancy or have a pregnancy 'end on it's own' without a pregnancy to begin with. Neither induced abortion nor spontaneous abortion prevents the pregnancy to begin with. Therefore is not a factor in the reduced numbers of pregnancies in teens.

Posted by: Sally at December 26, 2007 10:07 PM


Pregnant Jamie Lynn speaks out

Posted by: Doug at December 26, 2007 10:14 PM


I worked in Canada for 9 years and lived there for 4. Lots of good people, a higher percentage than in the US, IMO. Amyway, no big differences other than the "niceness" factor.

Posted by: Doug at December 26, 2007 10:17 PM


David Reardon is a well known researcher on the effects of abortion.

Hardy har har har.

Posted by: Doug at December 26, 2007 10:19 PM


Sally,

What I'm saying is that many of these aborted girls will become pregnant again and give birth, so abortion does nothing to prevent teen parenthood, only postpone it a few months or a few years. I knew a nurse who had an abortion at age 14, a baby at age 17, and this baby grew up to repeat the pattern of teen pregnancy.
You said abortion prevents possible teen parenthood, and I say not always.

Posted by: Mary at December 26, 2007 10:22 PM


Only took me all day, but I finally translated the follow-up on the Spanish abortion investigation melodrama. (Asi se Aborta En Espana thread) Well, part of it, anyway. Some stuff hit the fan as a result.

Posted by: carder at December 26, 2007 10:26 PM


"I worked in Canada for 9 years and lived there for 4. Lots of good people, a higher percentage than in the US, IMO. Amyway, no big differences other than the "niceness" factor."

I agree with you a little there Doug, having traveled quite a bit, some Americans can be quite rude. I think it depends sometimes where in the US your refering to as well.

"Hardy har har har."

Doug,
Serously, I'm no expert in this, I'll bet many women and (men) who have gone through an abortion think about it ( I know several ). I can't imagine they haven't.

Posted by: jasper at December 26, 2007 10:33 PM


oh, thanks-again Carder.

"Some stuff hit the fan as a result." (I heard)

Doug, I hope you watched the abortion video.

Posted by: jasper at December 26, 2007 10:35 PM


Jasper, I messed up the italicizing, I think, or else the HTML code just didn't "take," but I was referring to Reardon being a "well known researcher." Heh.

Posted by: Doug at December 26, 2007 11:05 PM


I think it depends sometimes where in the US you're referring to as well.

Ha! Jasper, no doubt. Not trying to start trouble, and I realize it's subjective to some extent (though I have traveled extensively for 26 years, the last 23 as my job) but let me say there will often be a difference between a stressed-out person in northern New Jersey and another person in most any state in the country.

My own admittedly biases list of "Worst Drivers" in the US:

1.) New Jersey
2.) New York
3.) Massachusetts. Boston - need I say more?
4.) Connecticut. Used to be 3 but now they are 4.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at December 26, 2007 11:13 PM


I can't speak from a clinical point of view, but I can speak from a "seen" what it did to post-abortive women point of view. A childhood friend had an aunt who had an abortion about 60yrs. ago and suffered with mental illness after that, until the day she died. I have a friend who had an abortion about 30yrs ago and is still struggling with depression and guilt over it. I know another young woman (22yrs. old)who had an abortion two years ago and is trying to drown her guilt about it in alcohol. All of these women were normal, happy people until they chose to end the lives of their babies. Abortion ~ good for women? Not so much!!

Posted by: One who's been there at December 26, 2007 11:14 PM


If you're going to base it all off of personal stories here's some more:

A friend of mine had in abortion in high school. She is not on any medication for any mental illness, and is not depressed. She finished college, and is now in a long term relationship.

Another friend had an abortion a year and a half ago. She was and still is in a long term relationship. She got depressed when she found out she was pregnant. She felt relieved after her abortion. She is still in the same relationship and is graduating this year.

A third friend had an abortion last year. She is in the same relationship as she was then, but it was very new when she found out she was pregnant. Both her and the guy had a VERY long conversation, and she decided that it would be best if she aborted, and he agreed. IT WAS NOT HIS IDEA. She is not depressed, is actually doing better in school now, and is happier than I've ever seen her.

Posted by: Jodes at December 26, 2007 11:31 PM


It'll catch up to them sooner or later. They can run but they can't hide. Guilt and depression is right around the corner.

Posted by: One who's been there at December 26, 2007 11:42 PM


Nah - the vast majority of women make their best choice, which ever way they choose.

Posted by: Doug at December 26, 2007 11:55 PM


That's quite an assumption.
You could say that if 10 years down the road they are diagnosed with depression, it must be because of the abortion. I could say it was from any number of events, or could be due to a chemical thing in their brain.

And, really, 25% of ALL people go through some kind of depression. So, you cannot say that those who have an abortion will eventually be depressed or guilt-ridden. For all you know they may be depressed about some completely unrelated event (it's almost likely).

So, please don't tell me that 3 of my very good friends, who made decisions for their lives, decisions which turned out to be a good choice, will be depressed later in life.
It may be hard to understand for you, but their abortion does not define their lives, and they aren't guilty or depressed by it.

Posted by: Jodes at December 26, 2007 11:55 PM


Jodes,

How do you KNOW they aren't feeling guilty or depressed by it? I mean anybody can SAY they don't feel bad, but when they're laying there in bed at night, thinking about their life and decisions, they don't ever feel that tug at their conscience? That tug that maybe, just MAYBE, they got rid of a great experience in their life.

Come on now.

Then again, I suppose many people can rationalize anything away. At least for a while.

Posted by: Elizabeth at December 27, 2007 12:11 AM


Elizabeth.
I am a person who suffers from chronic major depression. And I know every trick to hide it from the entire world. I know them very well.
It is nearly impossible to trick me. I have caught other friends in depression cycles.

You may say that they just don't know it yet. I say you are just waiting for something to go wrong in their lives so you can blame it on the abortion.

So, Come on now.
It is possible that some people don't need to rationalize away anything.
It is possible that some people just don't define who they are by this choice. It is possible that people don't feel guilty that they made a choice about their lives that not everyone agrees with.

It is possible that some people do feel that way. In which case I would say they made the wrong choice. But, you really should get the idea that for other people, it is the right choice, and therefore they don't have crushing guilt and depression.

Posted by: Jodes at December 27, 2007 12:21 AM


It'll catch up to them sooner or later. They can run but they can't hide. Guilt and depression is right around the corner.

Posted by: One who's been there at December 26, 2007 11:42 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nope.
There's been no link found between abortion and depression. The VAST majority of women make the right decison for themselves and just move on.
Sorry to disappoint you.

Posted by: Laura at December 27, 2007 12:35 AM


"One who's been there"

you speak the truth.

Posted by: jasper at December 27, 2007 1:13 AM


I find it funny that everyone bitches about teachers being 'liberal' or 'conservative' (to which I say who cares as long as it doesn't influences everyone's grades).

Oh no. Heaven forbid someone may be exposed to an opposing view. If it doesn't hurt anyones grades why tf does it matter? I find the ones who complain about 'liberal teachers' generally would not complain about having equally 'conservative teachers' even if it DID influence grading patterns.

This is what we are arguing about? Teachers' politics? Why don't we focus on the education. Mainly, that most of our kids don't really have any.

Posted by: prettyinpink at December 27, 2007 1:22 AM


Why don't we focus on the education. Mainly, that most of our kids don't really have any.

PIP,

Woo hoo. I second that statement..it does make me wonder why that is though. I'm sure there are quite a few contributing factors.

Posted by: Elizabeth at December 27, 2007 8:37 AM


But, you really should get the idea that for other people, it is the right choice, and therefore they don't have crushing guilt and depression.

Sorry, I just can't "get" that getting rid of a whole generation of people is the right "choice" for anyone.

Posted by: Elizabeth at December 27, 2007 8:40 AM


Quoth PIP:
This is what we are arguing about? Teachers' politics? Why don't we focus on the education. Mainly, that most of our kids don't really have any.

Yeah, quibbling about an agenda in the universities seems like a moot point. Most of the major universities in the USA have a serious tilt toward the Left. If that bothers you, don't send your kids there. Liberty University offers a fine education:
http://www.liberty.edu/
(That's only one example; I'm sure there are other fine schools that could be cited.)

Nobody forces anyone to attend a particular university. Parents really need to make such decisions with a critical eye. And they need to think about the whole decision. I have three kids of my own, ages 7, 5, and 1. I have a little while before I need to decide on a university (obviously), but something have occurred to me. Why on Earth would I send my kids to a school that will spend four years attacking the foundations that my wife & I have tried to build? What quality of education could possibly be worth that?

"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?" (Mark 8:36, NASB)

Basically, school choice is the antidote to biased universities. If parents make informed choices about where we send our kids to school, the free market will take care of the rest. It's only a shame that we don't have the same choices in the earlier stages of education....

Posted by: Naaman at December 27, 2007 8:56 AM


And there it is.

Having a single abortion suddenly makes you personally responsible for a "whole generation"

Have you thought that people might just see it as a single incidence in their lives and that's it? Some people don't think "I am destroying an entire generation because the best choice for me is to not be pregnant".

And, I understand that you won't get it. And that's just fine.

Posted by: Jodes at December 27, 2007 9:02 AM


A teen would need to be pregnant to have a pregnancy ended. Abortion prevents possible teen parenthood, not pregnancy.



Sally,



I am sure it would benefit you to read all my comments before responding to to just one. A terminated pregnancy is not necessarily "reported" pregnancy.In fact the planned hood is making every effort to conceal abortions as much as they can, and not only from the parents. So the numbers Laura was presenting are fictional, to put it lightly.



Laura, claimed that there was 30% decrease in teen pregnancies. After I challenged her that increase of abortion could have affected these numbers, among other things. She said that abortions have decreased as well during 1990-2000. There is simply no data to compare that decade- 1980-1990.

Posted by: Vlad at December 27, 2007 9:07 AM


I find the ones who complain about 'liberal teachers' generally would not complain about having equally 'conservative teachers' even if it DID influence grading patterns.

PIP, right on! Great observation. And to be fair, vice-versa too with those who would complain about conservative teachers. If somebody wants an agenda pushed like that, they want it pushed.

On kids "not really having an education," it's a hard situation. Compared to some foreign nations, US kids spend less time per day and less days per year in school. I also see less interest on the part of the parents, in general, compared with Japan, for example. Not that just "more time" is the ultimate answer. And too much parental pressure on kids can be a bad thing.

My wife is a teacher; this year she has sophomores and seniors in high school. Part of the problem is the "mainstreaming" of kids. I am not saying that some kids should just be kicked out or shut away in dead-end programs, but teachers often have to spend so much time with the behavior problems and learning problems of the relatively few kids that the entire class suffers a lot.

The "No Child Left Behind" program is really bad, IMO. Teachers feel compelled to "teach to the test" - just trying to prepare the kids to "get over the hurdle" of the next mandatory scoring. The Principal and the School Board pretty much just say that test scores have to come up, all else be damned. Vice-Principals go around and monitor teachers, and the teachers have to do a bunch of extra BS - not stuff directly benefitting the kids, but rather "Accountability Folders" - trying to prove that the teachers are following the course prescribed by the School Board and ultimately the Bush Administration. This is in addition to the normal course outlines and lesson plans that should suffice.

Every day the state "Standards and Objectives" have to be on the board, which the kids have long since become blind to. Just more "party line" stuff which serves no real good purpose. "Failure Intervention Plans" have to be in place and documented (to a ridiculous degree IMO) - really just trying to cover the school's butt when kids are failing or close to it.

Anyway, there is an increasing feeling among teachers that "this is not what I signed up for," that it's really no longer about teaching kids but rather just worrying about the next standardized test.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at December 27, 2007 9:13 AM


Do you trust the CDC? I do.

Here, have some numbers:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5404a6.htm

Posted by: Laura at December 27, 2007 9:17 AM


Doug, I agree with you regarding your opinions on education. Mainstreaming is often forced on children when it is not the best option. Parents may want the child in a specialized program,but the schools push mainstreaming because it is cheaper for them.

Posted by: Carrie at December 27, 2007 9:28 AM


Carrie and Doug,

A very dear friend is a special ed teacher and she definitely has some issues with mainstreaming. The argument is that the "mainstreamed" special needs students will be among their "peers". She stresses that "those aren't their peers". She stresses that its far more beneficial for children to be with other special needs chidren as themselves, especially the mentally challenged students. They should be among those truly their "peers". Also, they need teachers trained to meet the special needs of these students.
My friend had to advise a "mainstream" teacher as to how to best teach an autistic child. The "mainstream" teacher insisted on her own method which my friend said was totally useless for this autistic child. Both teacher and student were frustrated and getting nowhere. How often can this happen with "mainstreamed" special needs students? One certainly can't blame the "mainstream" teachers.
I think the notion of "mainstreaming", like so many well intentioned plans, needs to be reevaluated. If the student can be "mainstreamed", fine, but this should be done only after careful assessment and should be an option, not forced.

Posted by: Mary at December 27, 2007 9:52 AM


I agree with you too, Doug, on most of this. This is another reason that we're homeschooling.

Posted by: Bethany at December 27, 2007 10:00 AM


Mary, I so agree with what you just wrote. I have fought many battles over this very issue.

Posted by: Carrie at December 27, 2007 10:26 AM


Carrie, Mary, and Bethany - yeah, and it's too bad, I think.

There is the issue of cost and extra cost for some kids. A hard issue. And definitely - sometimes being in with one's "peers" can be bad when they're really not peers. Bad for them and for everybody else.

My wife goes in before 8 a.m. and commonly stays until 10 p.m. Some teachers are out of there by 4:30 or 5 p.m. but most do work quite a bit extra, just trying to keep up with things, increasingly just BS mandated from above.

My wife was quite idealistic, yet the spirit is being beaten out of her. There are teachers with 30 years in who are saying it's gone downhill fast in the last few years.

Some are staying due to the feeling of, "If I don't teach these kids then who is going to?"

That's not going to do it for most, though, and I see a lot of teachers finally giving up and saying it's just not worth it any longer.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at December 27, 2007 10:27 AM


We have my son in a school of his peers now and he loves it. He has never been happier. He isn't isolated even though it isn't part of the public school. He is learning more about life skills and community skills than he ever did when he was in a public achool. I will fight tooth and nail if they ever try to put him back into a mainstream environment!

Posted by: Carrie at December 27, 2007 10:37 AM


Carrie, Doug, and Bethany,

Carrie, I am so happy to hear how well your son is doing. He is with his "peers" and with teachers trained to meet his special needs. We also have a special needs school in our community as well. Also, special olympics is very active here. I volunteer for certain events and love it. I think its an incredible program. Does your son take part?

Doug, I commend your wife and her dedication. When I was in elementary school our classes averaged 32 students. Guess what, we learned. Teachers were respected and not afraid to administer discipline. Our classes were racially, ethnically, and religiously mixed. Guess what, we figured out for ourselves that people are "different", and we even managed to learn how to talk to and respect each other without classes on diversity and multiculturalism, something we never heard of. It was parents' responsibility to teach children about pride in their heritage and respect for others, not the teacher's. Time, energy, and resources weren't wasted teaching "sensitivity".
I'll let these "experts" on diversity in on a little secret. The best way for all of us to get along is to stop making an issue of our differences. It worked great for us. But then, these "experts" would have to find real jobs.

Oh, my one claim to fame. I went to elementary school with Stevie Wonder. He was in the class for the blind and at that time segregaton of blind students was rigid, maybe too much so. By the time I went to high school, blind students were mainstreamed, though they did have their own teacher and classroom for braille etc. which provided peer contact.

Posted by: Mary at December 27, 2007 11:00 AM


Doug, I totally agree. Yeah, vice versa on my statement, I should have said that.

Posted by: prettyinpink at December 27, 2007 11:10 AM


Mary, he's done Special Olympics off and on for several years. I love going. It is so inspirational to see the atheletes.

Posted by: Carrie at December 27, 2007 11:26 AM


*should read athletes*

Posted by: Carrie at December 27, 2007 11:33 AM


Mary, good descriptions of your experience. I hear you on "parent's responsibility" - schools rarely if ever can make up for lack of time/interest/effort on the part of parents.

My wife's school has a lot of comparitively disadvantaged kids, a huge portion of single-parent homes, many kids with real behavior and learning problems.

Probably 10% of the kids are sailing right through, and 30% are doing "okay," but not great.

There are 5% or 10% that are disruptive enough that they consume so much teacher time that the 50% who are not doing okay but will still graduate or keep on with school for some time really suffer for it, along with the 30% who are just "okay."

That's about 80% overall who are ending up without the education they could have, due in part to teachers having to deal with the relative few.

Posted by: Doug at December 27, 2007 11:40 AM


Do you trust the CDC? I do.

Posted by: Laura at December 27, 2007 9:17 AM

When it comes to abortion I do not trust CDC at all. Their numbers are based on what is being reported by local departments of health in each particular state. New Jersey Department of Health admits on their own website how inaccurate the reporting is:

http://www.njabp.com/health/chs/itop/index.html

I have no reason to believe that other states are doing better job than NJ- therefor I do not trust CDC at all.

Posted by: Vlad at December 27, 2007 1:13 PM


Doug,

Again, your wife is to be commended for her dedication. Schools always dealt with problems like these, but I never recall the difficulties teachers have today. You and I are from the era when a teacher was treated with respect, period. Nothing put fear in us like a trip to the principal's office. We also had poor children and children from broken homes. My home life was certainly not bliss, but I had darned well better behave in class! And like I said, we all learned. I had to be put in the "slower" section up until 3rd grade. No one cared if that traumatized my psyche. My mother objected when my first grade teacher did that and the teacher fired back that she had several years experience teaching and was the better judge of my abilities. So I remained in the dumbbell section despite my mother's objections. Imagine a teacher trying that now!

Carrie,

Your son sounds like he is doing so well and I'm happy for you both. Special Olympics is wonderful and all volunteers and athletes are so dedicated. My favorite and for me the most fun, is bowling, where I sometimes feel like I'm conducting an orchestra, though I have helped with track and field. Its so encouraging to see so much community support.

Posted by: Mary at December 27, 2007 2:33 PM


Jodes,

If every woman had a "single abortion," there goes a WHOLE generation of people, does that really not make sense to you? And she did get rid of a whole generation of her family...that is if she doesn't or can't have any more children. But we can keep trivializing the whole issue if that's what you think is best.

Posted by: Elizabeth at December 27, 2007 2:53 PM


Who cares what the pro-aborts think? Their thinking is so evil that we shouldn't concern ourselves with their anti-Christ, anti-child and anti-family rationale.

May their days be few.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at December 27, 2007 3:35 PM


Love you too Zeke.

I'm perfectly happy with "anti-Christ," but I'm neither "anti-child" nor "anti-family." (and i'm not really "anti" Jesus Christ either. Not my cup of tea, but in most cases harmless)

In fact, I am probably pro many more American families than you do. (gay parents, for example)

Posted by: Hal at December 27, 2007 4:19 PM


Schools always dealt with problems like these, but I never recall the difficulties teachers have today. You and I are from the era when a teacher was treated with respect, period. Nothing put fear in us like a trip to the principal's office. We also had poor children and children from broken homes. My home life was certainly not bliss, but I had darned well better behave in class!

Mary, no doubt. I don't have any really good solutions to today's situations - the realities of costs and home situations make it tough.

Bottom line - I think it's a shame that teachers feel like they have to walk on eggshells around kids now, for fear of what parents might do - sue the school, sue the teacher, just raise Cain some way.... In the end it's just going to make some good teachers quit or go to other schools, and that's not good for the kids.

If anything, though I think the idea is okay, the "No Child Left Behind" thing is working out to be a net negative in practice.

Posted by: Doug at December 27, 2007 4:41 PM


On Keisha Castle Hughes - she sounds like she has a good handle on things. I sure wish her the best.

http://tinyurl.com/24wpge

Posted by: Doug at December 27, 2007 5:56 PM


I just saw juno tonight and I love love love it. I cried like a sap, of course.

Posted by: prettyinpink at December 27, 2007 7:30 PM


btw GREAT MUSIC!!!

I went crazy when Bateman put on "superstar." GO SONIC YOUTH!

Posted by: prettyinpink at December 27, 2007 7:31 PM


Sally,

What I'm saying is that many of these aborted girls will become pregnant again and give birth, so abortion does nothing to prevent teen parenthood, only postpone it a few months or a few years. I knew a nurse who had an abortion at age 14, a baby at age 17, and this baby grew up to repeat the pattern of teen pregnancy.
You said abortion prevents possible teen parenthood, and I say not always.

Posted by: Mary at December 26, 2007 10:22 PM
.........................................................

I didn't say always Mary now did I? I was questioning the assertion that abortion is a portion of the percentage of decline in teen pregnancy. In the case of a teen having an abortion, pregnancy has not been prevented, therefore not a factor of the decline in pregnancies.

Posted by: Sally at December 27, 2007 9:47 PM


But, you really should get the idea that for other people, it is the right choice, and therefore they don't have crushing guilt and depression.

Sorry, I just can't "get" that getting rid of a whole generation of people is the right "choice" for anyone.

Posted by: Elizabeth at December 27, 2007 8:40 AM
...........................

I think that if a whole generation had gone missing it would be in the news.

Posted by: Sally at December 27, 2007 9:54 PM


Sally,

You said in your 8:05PM that abortion prevents teen parenthood, not pregnancy. I agree. But abortion doesn't always prevent teen parenthood , only postpones it in many cases.
I'm aware you didn't say "always". I was just making the point that many of these teens will eventually become pregnant again and give birth, so its obvious abortion will not always prevent teen parenthood.

Posted by: Mary at December 27, 2007 9:58 PM


A teen would need to be pregnant to have a pregnancy ended. Abortion prevents possible teen parenthood, not pregnancy.

Sally,

I am sure it would benefit you to read all my comments before responding to to just one. A terminated pregnancy is not necessarily "reported" pregnancy.In fact the planned hood is making every effort to conceal abortions as much as they can, and not only from the parents. So the numbers Laura was presenting are fictional, to put it lightly.

Laura, claimed that there was 30% decrease in teen pregnancies. After I challenged her that increase of abortion could have affected these numbers, among other things. She said that abortions have decreased as well during 1990-2000. There is simply no data to compare that decade- 1980-1990.

Posted by: Vlad at December 27, 2007 9:07 AM
.................................................

There is no way to ascertain that all pregnancies are reported under all circumstances and conclusions to said pregnancies.
How do you support the assertion that PP conceals abortions? And why would they feel a need to do so? Abortion is legal.

Posted by: Sally at December 27, 2007 9:59 PM


Sally,

You said in your 8:05PM that abortion prevents teen parenthood, not pregnancy. I agree. But abortion doesn't always prevent teen parenthood , only postpones it in many cases.
I'm aware you didn't say "always". I was just making the point that many of these teens will eventually become pregnant again and give birth, so its obvious abortion will not always prevent teen parenthood.

Posted by: Mary at December 27, 2007 9:58 PM
............................................................................

Many teens will become pregnant and choose to become teen parents without ever having an abortion. How does this relate to the decrease in teen pregnancy?

Posted by: Sally at December 27, 2007 10:07 PM


Sally,

It may also only postpone teen parenthood.

Posted by: Mary at December 27, 2007 10:09 PM


Sally,

I never discussed the reduction in teen pregnancy, I only responded to your comment(8:05PM) when I said that abortion will not always prevent teen parenthood.

Posted by: Mary at December 27, 2007 10:12 PM


Sally,

I never discussed the reduction in teen pregnancy, I only responded to your comment(8:05PM) when I said that abortion will not always prevent teen parenthood.

Posted by: Mary at December 27, 2007 10:12 PM
...............................

My comment related to teen pregnancy. You chose to select part of my response to another, to post to me out of context.

Posted by: Sally at December 27, 2007 10:37 PM


Sally,

I know, OK. I didn't choose to select anything. You made a comment on your post and I responded. No big deal.

Posted by: Mary at December 27, 2007 10:41 PM


**giggles**
I just noticed the "key charm" on Jamie Lynn's necklace!
LOL

Posted by: AB Laura at December 27, 2007 10:48 PM


Jamie Lynn will be fine. I'm sure that plenty of "pro choicers" would have been delighted had she chosen to abort.

Posted by: heather at December 29, 2007 12:31 PM


I think it remains to be seen if she'll be "fine."

Posted by: Doug at January 4, 2008 2:53 PM