[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
Sex positive" is, I am pleased to note, a term that has been gaining more attention in recent years. A social and philosophical response to repressed, limited, and often judgmental attitudes toward sex and sexuality, the sex positive movement emphasizes that "good sex" is defined as safe, informed, consensual, and whatever else it also is beyond those things is best left up to the people participating in the act. That's it, and I think that's awesome. As a parent, I am already doing my best to encourage sex positive attitudes in my children, who are 4-years-old and 19 months — despite the fact that they have absolutely no idea what sex is, and I don't have plans to get into what it is with either of them any time soon. No, this is not a contradiction, and it's not hard to do.

What it comes down to is this: Sex positivity rarely exists in a vacuum. It's usually part of a larger life philosophy that believes all people are entitled to happiness and respect. I have found that there are broad areas of overlap between the body positive and fat acceptance movements, feminism, and the LGBT community. As such, there is so much a parent can say to their child that lays the groundwork for them to have happy, healthy, and fulfilling sex lives (when they're ready) that don't necessarily have a thing to do with sex."
>

This is a good read for those of you that are parents or will be parents in the future. Of course, I don't think you have to be a parent to teach children these lessons.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
Catholics should not feel they have to breed "like rabbits" because of the Church's ban on contraception, Pope Francis said on Monday, suggesting approved natural family planning methods.

I had fun with this part:
He mentioned a woman he recently met who already had seven children by caesarean sections and put her life at risk by becoming pregnant again. He said he chided her for "tempting God" and added: "That was an irresponsibility."
Ooh, where do I start? I love how women are always being blamed for getting pregnant like we can magically make ourselves pregnant. Seriously, if that was the case, we wouldn't need men and sex (well, if you're having sex for procreation reasons that is). We could just say "I would like to be pregnant now" and boom-badda-bing! There's a bun in the oven. That's not the case in reality. So, where the fuck is the blame on the husband who got her pregnant? I mean...maybe it was his idea for her to get pregnant, whether she wanted to or not.

More )
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
There are plenty of reasons why a woman might not have children. For many, it’s a choice to be childfree. Some are waiting for the right partner. Others might want to be mothers, but have had difficulties starting a family.

But the one thing many women without kids share is an awareness of constant judgment on their non-mom status. In an interview in January’s Allure, Jennifer Aniston addressed the issue head on: “I don’t like [the pressure] that people put on me, on women—that you’ve failed yourself as a female because you haven’t procreated. I don’t think it’s fair,” she said. “You may not have a child come out of your vagina, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t mothering—dogs, friends, friends’ children.”


Rest of the article )

This is the best statement in the article that articulate my personal feelings about this:
As for the “selfish” label, Notkin says it’s in the eye of the beholder. “One could be called selfish if they have more than four kids, too,” she says. “All decisions that we make about ourselves and our lives are selfish.”
She is absolutely correct on this. The sad reality is that regardless what kind of choice a woman makes, it's going to be seen as her being selfish by someone. If a woman choses to have a child, she's selfish. If she choses to have more than one or whatever magic number you want to use, she's selfish. If a woman aborts a pregnancy, she's selfish. If a woman choses not to have children ever, she's selfish. If a woman choses to give her kid up for adoption, she's selfish. If a woman choses to use contraception, she's selfish. If a woman choses to get sterilized, she's selfish. If a woman choses to have sex, she's selfish. If a woman choses to abstain, she's selfish (see where this is going).

This is a classic example of "You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't". This is why it's imperative that when women make decisions regarding their personal reproductive health that they decide what they want for themselves rather than basing it off of other people's opinions because she's not going to make anyone but herself happy (yes, and that's selfish in of itself which brings me to ask "When have humans ever been 100% not selfish)
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
From the RCRC (Religious Coaliation for Reproductive Choice):

Each year, 750,000 teens become pregnant in the U.S. These numbers represent a failing system, in large part because education, culture and public policies on sexuality are still based on conservative religious views that put judgment and shame ahead of the dignity, health and wellbeing of our nation’s youth. Consequently, when young women become pregnant, they are often stigmatized and written off. If we truly wish to support families, we must change this paradigm. Take action now to help pregnant and parenting students receive the support they need to succeed.

(Btw, you can remove the "I'm a person of faith" in the beginning of the message if you don't belong to a faith)
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
Warren Buffett, probably the world’s most successful investor, has said that anything good that happened to him could be traced back to the fact that he was born in the right country, the United States, at the right time (1930). A quarter of a century ago, when The World in 1988 light-heartedly ranked 50 countries according to where would be the best place to be born in 1988, America indeed came top. But which country will be the best for a baby born in 2013?

To answer this, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a sister company of The Economist, has this time turned deadly serious. It earnestly attempts to measure which country will provide the best opportunities for a healthy, safe and prosperous life in the years ahead.

Its quality-of-life index links the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys—how happy people say they are—to objective determinants of the quality of life across countries. Being rich helps more than anything else, but it is not all that counts; things like crime, trust in public institutions and the health of family life matter too. In all, the index takes 11 statistically significant indicators into account. They are a mixed bunch: some are fixed factors, such as geography; others change only very slowly over time (demography, many social and cultural characteristics); and some factors depend on policies and the state of the world economy.

A forward-looking element comes into play, too. Although many of the drivers of the quality of life are slow-changing, for this ranking some variables, such as income per head, need to be forecast. We use the EIU’s economic forecasts to 2030, which is roughly when children born in 2013 will reach adulthood.


What are your thoughts about this? I'm not surprised that the country I'm currently residing is in the top 5.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
I got this snippet from the middle of the article. It's very long, but I think it's an interesting article even though some parts make me roll my eyes.

Last summer, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals upheld this expanded interpretation of the chemical-endangerment law, ruling that the dictionary definition of “child” includes “unborn child,” an interpretation that will be challenged when the state’s Supreme Court considers Kimbrough’s case in the coming months. But the implications of that ruling go far beyond Alabama. Critics like Ketteringham argue that Alabama’s chemical-endangerment law offers a back door into what has become known as the “fetal personhood” argument.

Personhood USA, an organization based in Colorado, was founded in 2008 by Keith Mason after he became frustrated by the mainstream anti-abortion movement’s incremental approach of restricting the availability of legal abortion. “From my perspective, I saw a movement that was largely dying or dead and had a lack of enthusiasm from younger people and from people who had been in the fight for so many years,” he told me. “Something had to change. Personhood is that rallying point, because it’s the crux of the issue.” His movement seeks to establish the fetus’s right to live as equal to that of the mother’s.

Personhood advocates regard fetal rights as a civil rights issue, and they often compare themselves to abolitionists. “I think it would be unequal protection to give the woman a pass when anyone else who injects drugs into a child would be prosecuted,” Ben DuPré, director of Personhood Alabama, said. “What it boils down to is, aren’t these little children persons?”

The goal of Personhood USA is to establish that a fully rights-endowed person is created when sperm meets egg. To that end, it has introduced initiatives and measures in legislatures in 22 states. Though none of these measures have become law, some, like Proposition 26 in Mississippi, have made it to a ballot referendum, and other measures have passed legislative chambers in North Dakota, Montana and Oklahoma. The problem with those measures, from a legal perspective, says Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, is that “there is no way to treat fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as separate constitutional persons without subtracting pregnant women from the community of constitutional persons.”


What is everyone's thoughts on this?

Victory!

Apr. 13th, 2010 11:49 pm
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
Some really great news, my fellow Maryland (as well as out-of-state) pro-choicers! Remember this bill that I mentioned last month? The personhood amendment to the Maryland constitution was defeated in commitee!!!.

SB 500 was defeated in commitee too!!! This bill would've reated scripted communication around ultrasound between a woman and her health care provider and wrongly implied that Maryland women are not making informed decisions about abortion. Maryland abortion providers provide compassionate care to the women they serve without political interference.

Another bill, which doesn't have any thing to do with abortion, but with people's children was passed and signed into law today by Govenor O'Malley. It was the BPA-Free Bottle Baby Act. This bans toys and children’s items containing bisphenol-A (BPA). BPA, a synthetic form of estrogen, directly impacts the reproductive health of boys, girls, men and women. Research suggests that BPA exposure may contribute to recurrent miscarriages, fertility problems in men and women, and early onset puberty. With this bill enacted, Maryland becomes a leader in preventing harmful chemical exposure to children.
[identity profile] lynn82md.livejournal.com
COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Snippets from the article:
"I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.
Exactly...what they think. Not you or the goverment, Mr. Porritt

I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.
Hmmm...so if you support a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible, how would you feel if someone suggested that the goverment should take a position where having more than one child or having any children at all is irresponsible? You wouldn't like it considering you're the father of two children.

Many organisations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ‘You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial,” he said.
Well, it is controversial to tell another person what to do with their reproductive life. Telling someone that they are irresponsible for having more than two children is almost as bad as telling someone that they are irresponsible for having more than two abortions. Snippets from the article:
"I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.
Exactly...what they think. Not you or the goverment, Mr. Porritt

I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.
Hmmm...so if you support a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible, how would you feel if someone suggested that the goverment should take a position where having more than one child or having any children at all is irresponsible? You wouldn't like it considering you're the father of two children.

Many organisations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ‘You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial,” he said.
Well, it is controversial to tell another person what to do with their reproductive life. Telling someone they are irresponsible for having x amount of children is as bad as telling a woman who has had x amount of abortions that they are irresponsible. If you were able to get pregnant, maybe you would understand that.

What do you all think?

Btw, if this post looks familiar, I did make a post about it on [livejournal.com profile] pro_choice back in Feburary. I would've crossed posted, but [livejournal.com profile] prochoicemd didn't exist then :P

Profile

prochoice_maryland: (Default)
Pro-Choice Maryland

August 2017

S M T W T F S
  12345
6 789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 05:58 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios