Abortion Issues

[OlgaH]

I don't believe in humanism and ethics of pro-life Christians who adopt children with Down disease, for whom it is really doesn't matter where to exist in sanitarium or in family, but leave behind mentally healthy children. I don't believe in humanism and ethics of pro-life people who try to save the fetuses of alcoholic and  drug addicted parents, and don't think that in the future the life of that future children most likely will be turned into real hell.   I think there should be law about obligatory  sterilization and in some cases obligatory abortion of that contingent. I don't believe in humanism of pro-life people who try to save a fetus, but don't care about a woman who face the fear of the unknown future (where she will live with her baby, how she will feed the baby) and more over they try to put her down psychologically "prosecuting" her. I don't believe in humanism  and Christian ethics of some pro-life parents who being aware that their fetus is not a viable child in the future or has so terrible physical abnormalities, try to keep the fetus and after it's birth to watch how their child die or psychologically suffer...         

[Admin]

I don't believe in humanism and ethics of pro-life Christians who adopt children with Down disease, for whom it is really doesn't matter where to exist in sanitarium or in family, but leave behind mentally healthy children. I don't believe in humanism and ethics of pro-life people who try to save the fetuses of alcoholic and  drug addicted parents, and don't think that in the future the life of that future children most likely will be turned into real hell.   I think there should be law about obligatory  sterilization and in some cases obligatory abortion of that contingent. I don't believe in humanism of pro-life people who try to save a fetus, but don't care about a woman who face the fear of the unknown future (where she will live with her baby, how she will feed the baby) and more over they try to put her down psychologically "prosecuting" her. I don't believe in humanism  and Christian ethics of some pro-life parents who being aware that their fetus is not a viable child in the future or has so terrible physical abnormalities, try to keep the fetus and after it's birth to watch how their child die or psychologically suffer...         

Olga,

Yours is an excellent example of someone expressing their heartfelt and passionate beliefs. Others will, of course, differ from yours.

Most everyone has now made their points - and I haven't seen any movement from anyone. It looks as if this is one of those cases where we need to; (a) be respectful of other's right to hold different opinions/beliefs than our own, and (b) agree to respectfully disagree on these points. Oh,,, and to move on to more productive topics in which there is the prospect of finding common ground to build upon.

- Dan

[GreginGa]

I don't believe in humanism and ethics of pro-life Christians who adopt children with Down disease, for whom it is really doesn't matter where to exist in sanitarium or in family, but leave behind mentally healthy children. I don't believe in humanism and ethics of pro-life people who try to save the fetuses of alcoholic and  drug addicted parents, and don't think that in the future the life of that future children most likely will be turned into real hell.   I think there should be law about obligatory  sterilization and in some cases obligatory abortion of that contingent. I don't believe in humanism of pro-life people who try to save a fetus, but don't care about a woman who face the fear of the unknown future (where she will live with her baby, how she will feed the baby) and more over they try to put her down psychologically "prosecuting" her. I don't believe in humanism  and Christian ethics of some pro-life parents who being aware that their fetus is not a viable child in the future or has so terrible physical abnormalities, try to keep the fetus and after it's birth to watch how their child die or psychologically suffer...         

Let me get this straight. You can't understand why people with a compassionate heart would adopt a kid with downs and leave behind a perfectly healthy child because the downs child will be no better off in a  family home or mental home. Is this what you are trying to say? I want to make sure before I tell you how much of a [personal insult removed] I think you are.

[OlgaH]

GreginGa,

You can throw your personal insults at me just because I hold the opinion of Professor Fletcher ( author of MORAL RESPONSIBILITY: SITUATION ETHICS AT WORK and other books, teaches pastoral theology and Christian ethics at the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge, Massachusetts), but your personal insults are just personal insults, nothing more  .

People in the Bards' situation have no reason to feel guilty about putting a Down's syndrome baby away, whether it's "put away" in the sense of hidden in a sanitarium or in a more responsible lethal sense. It is sad; yes. Dreadful. But it carries no guilt. True guilt arises only from an offense against a person, and a Down's is not a person. There is no cause for remorse, even though, certainly, there is for regret. Guilt over a decision to end an idiocy would be a false guilt, and probably unconsciously a form of psychic masochism.

There is far more reason for real guilt in keeping alive a Down's or other kind of idiot, out of a false idea of obligation or duty, while at the same time feeling no obligation at all to save that money and emotion for a living, learning child. The learning child might be a retarded one with a viable potential, or just an orphan in need of adoption.
http://www.altonweb.com/cs/downsyndrome/index.htm?page=fletcher.html

[Ronnie]

Ronnie I could care less about Olga's list. For you to say that if you date a RW/UW the probability that she has had an abortion ,maybe more than one is absolutely insane. I know you've always had a huge opinion,but this is crazy to make such a blanket statement regarding women from there. I'm not an advocate for abortion all all. I certainly think it is wrong,but I would not want you on my side when it comes to debating the issue.

Greg, I forgive you to a degree because you obviously have no idea about the prevalence of abortions in the SU and FSU.  As Misha and others has said, the attitude has been and continues to be that abortion will suffice as birth control if a pregnancy results.

You calling me insane for stating a fact is really peculiar.  The World Health Organization estimates that though Russia and Eastern Europe represent only one tenth of the world populations, that approximate one third of the worlds abortions are performed there.  The SU was the first country in the world to legalize abortion under V.I. Lenin.
The WHO also figures that each year more abortions are performed (about 1.8 million) in Russia than births (1.2 million).  That's Sixty percent of all pregnancies being terminated. 

Now Greg, you combine those facts with a near indifference to contraceptive devices (which has been attested to here by others) and you have an environment where you will likely find very many women who have had abortions. 

If you have arguments to the contrary you should state them.  Calling easily researchable facts, insane without explanation would not be a very persuasive argument in anyone's book except yours it would seem.

[GreginGa]

The fact is not many of us here are doctors but for you to come here and say to the guys on this board, "men your future wives probably had abortions and better yet she probably had more than one" dude you dont know that. I could absolutely care less what the World Health Organizations so called stats read like. I just asked my wife if she wouldve wanted to abort our child had she known the baby had downs or some other illness. She might speak to me before dark but it aint looking good.

[Ronnie]

Why is it some here seem to care so much about a child up until the event up and to birth and so little afterwards?

This world tolerates children dying of preventable disease every day.

How many thousands of children die every single day?

This world tolerates children living in poverty and malnourishment. In abuse and poverty. To suffer disease and neglect.

Why is it one event is intolerable to some (abortion) and the other not?

Deccie, you seem to be arguing for sterization of poor women.  Or if that is not your argument you have certainly laid the foundation for it.

The world does not "tolerate" children living in poverty and malnutrition, at least not that part of the world you seem to be trying to back into a corner of your own making.  No evidence suggests (unless you want to bring in George Carlin as a witness) that the same people who oppose abortion are the same ones who tolerate the suffering of children.

When I see commercials on TV soliciting funds or sponsorships for poor children in improverish countries, the organization is almost always backed by a Christian group; Feed the Children, Christian Children's Fund, et.al.  I believe it is these same Christians whom you criticize as being hypocrites.  The facts show they are totally consistent on the issues of children.  Where I wish they might come out stronger publicly is against capital punishment - many are against it, BTW. 

---------
My personal opinion as I stated before is that same standard should apply from both sides.  If you're against capital punishment you ought to not be so in favor of abortion on demand.  I would favor capital punishment only in rare cases where the convict has confessed, the confession is supported by other overwhelming evidence and the convict requests his life be taken, as with Gary Gilmore and some others.

--------
Olga, you have devoted nearly all your comments to the rare cases of extreme birth defect that would ultimately bring on death anyway.  Is that an honest argument when you know that such abortions are a miniscule percentage of those currently being performed?

Congratulations on this most happy event!  I am sure it will be one of the happiest days in the lives of many people. 
Men are quick to have opinions, so are women; many (most?) cases are self serving.  It is only genuine and actual experience that informs and expands understanding. 
There is no ones opinion to correct here; we are all entitled to our views.  Morality can not be legislated, only appeals to the higher nature of individuals can change minds or introduce the tolerance of understanding. 
Laws are laws and what the "majority" thinks will ultimately become the law and then we will see where that leads.  We know where the current thought and standard has deposited us, it is reflected in the comments here, and some outcomes in FSU society.   The contentiousness of this issue is not exhausted and I doubt ever will. Certainly it is an issue to be decided by those effected; they learn from their mistakes (we hope), or maybe they did not make a mistake... I have seen both sides and know my future actions.
By the way, your blog is an excellent source and I enjoy where it has led. 

?????
Well written but to whom is it directed?  What event?  What blog?

[Ronnie]

The fact is not many of us here are doctors but for you to come here and say to the guys on this board, "men your future wives probably had abortions and better yet she probably had more than one" dude you dont know that. I could absolutely care less what the World Health Organizations so called stats read like. I just asked my wife if she wouldve wanted to abort our child had she known the baby had downs or some other illness. She might speak to me before dark but it aint looking good.

It's one thing to restate someone's argument in a way that makes it appear easier to attack, it's an old debate ploy called setting up a straw man.  However, it's quite another to use quotation marks around that restatement.  That's not a ploy, that's blatant dishonesty.

Further, I don't know what to say to you when you declare an assertion is "insane" (wrong?) then when the proof is presented to you, you say "i could absolutely care less.." about those facts.  Your point is out there somewhere....I presume.

Good luck with your wife.

[Admin]

Greg, I forgive you to a degree because you obviously have no idea about the prevalence of abortions in the SU and FSU.  As Misha and others has said, the attitude has been and continues to be that abortion will suffice as birth control if a pregnancy results.

You calling me insane for stating a fact is really peculiar.  The World Health Organization estimates that though Russia and Eastern Europe represent only one tenth of the world populations, that approximate one third of the worlds abortions are performed there.  The SU was the first country in the world to legalize abortion under V.I. Lenin.
The WHO also figures that each year more abortions are performed (about 1.8 million) in Russia than births (1.2 million).  That's Sixty percent of all pregnancies being terminated. 

Now Greg, you combine those facts with a near indifference to contraceptive devices (which has been attested to here by others) and you have an environment where you will likely find very many women who have had abortions. 

If you have arguments to the contrary you should state them.  Calling easily researchable facts, insane without explanation would not be a very persuasive argument in anyone's book except yours it would seem.

Ronnie,

Greg already cited the portion of your post he found offensive. It was this: ""men your future wives probably had abortions and better yet she probably had more than one".

Obviously, that is not a researchable fact - and it is not surprising some would feel offended at the aspersion it casts.

Most in this recent exchange were not members here when abortion was previously 'discussed'. It ran a similar course. It ultimately resulted in clarification of the Terms of Service to curtail 'lightning rod' topics such as these. I had hoped this would be different.

At this point, it seems to me there is some baiting activity and personal insults. If it persists, I will lock the thread.

- Dan

[Admin]

Wooops,

Ronnie, for some reason, I thought you had, in fact, made the citation I quoted. I went back to find the context, and cannot. Clearly Greg interpreted you to have made the equivalent of that statement - and I confess, that was my interpretation as well.

Anyway - just clarifying my post.

- Dan

[Misha]

The World Health Organization estimates that though Russia and Eastern Europe represent only one tenth of the world populations, that approximate one third of the worlds abortions are performed there.

Last year was the first time in over a decade that the number of liver births outnumbered the number of abortions (and just barely). I can see if I can dig up some stats, but my guess is that the overall percentage of women who have had at least one abortion in Russia would be very high.

[Admin]

Folks,

Like I wrote earlier - much earlier - the topic of abortion is a 'lightning rod' issue. It draws people into arguments who rarely, if ever, argue openly.

Topics such as these require an enormous amount of self-control to keep them civil. They require a great degree of maturity, and an open-mindedness and desire to listen to others' opinions. With the broad range of diversity and large number of active members, it is not terribly surprising that these sorts of topics often devolve.

So what now?

Is there any reason to keep this topic alive? Has it been explored to everyone's 'satisfaction'? Do you see any possibility that it will become any more productive than it has to this point?

- Dan

[Ronnie]

Dan,

The relevance of this discussion, as I mentioned earlier, is that men should be prepared to deal with women who have had abortions in the FSU where the rates is so high.  Women can be emotionally traumatized by the experience and it can often affect their attitude toward religion and a raft of other things. 

By that, I do not want to be misinterpreted as saying women who have aborted pregnancies should be avoided....Not at all, (though it way have affected her abiltity to bear a child if the womb has been damaged), such women need to be treated with an extra measure of compassion.  I also feel that a woman who has aborted but is not remorseful, may show other symptoms of indifference to issues of integrity and could explain an antipathy to God and/or religion. 

[Misha]

Women can be emotionally traumatized by the experience and it can often affect their attitude toward religion and a raft of other things.

The sad part is the physical consequences as well: Russian medical specialists are saying that one of the causes of Russia's relatively high infertility rates are due to the high rates of abortion and high prevalence of STD's. I personally do not object to abortions and don't have any moral qualms about it, but it is sad that more women are risking their ability to have children in the future (if Russian medical specialists are correct) as well as putting their health at risk (STD's, HIV/AIDS, etc.) simply because other forms of birth control as well as condoms are not being used.

[Ronnie]

The sad part is the physical consequences as well: Russian medical specialists are saying that one of the causes of Russia's relatively high infertility rates are due to the high rates of abortion and high prevalence of STD's. I personally do not object to abortions and don't have any moral qualms about it, but it is sad that more women are risking their ability to have children in the future (if Russian medical specialists are correct) as well as putting their health at risk (STD's, HIV/AIDS, etc.) simply because other forms of birth control as well as condoms are not being used.

That's right Misha.  I have a acquaintance who is now married but told me that in his 5-year search he engaged in sexual intercourse with 16 different RWs.  Only one, he said, insisted on a condom and one other insisted on spermicide.  And, these were not young naive girls, they were all in their thirties.  He did not know how many had had abortions, but one can assume that unless many were on the pill or IUD, that there might be a fairly good percentage.

[Kuna]

Before the thread is locked I wanted to add a few things:

1. We all know abortion's for the sake of convenience are not uncommon in FSU.  That is not a highlight of FSU culture to me but it is a welcome convenience for others.

2. As women should know all of the important things about men prior to marriage...  sheeesh, even prior to meeting according to some, I wonder if it wouldn't be unreasonable to demand they list their number of abortions on their profiles so we who are repulsed by it can give them the attention they deserve.

3. If a woman aborts a child because she's not financially capable of supporting one perhaps she should stay off her back - OR just accept damn responsibility for her actions.

4. I love how abortionists twist every which way to defend their need for a convenient life:

a) To protect the health of the mother.  I actually agree with this but I don't count stretch marks or back pain as serious helth issues.  If a womans life was at risk, or even quality of life after birth being subsntially impeded because of a serious health issues, even I say the woman should be given the option.

b) A fetus is not a baby because it cannot yet survive, etc, twist, squirm, turn, deceive.  Fact is... the fetus is left to natural processes may very well turn into a viable life, a beautiful child, a person who appreciates the fact it's mother didn't terminate it just because it was not convenient.

c) Men won't don't support single mothers so why should the mother take responsibility?  It's a disgusting excuse to avoid the real fact.  To get pregnant both the man and woman must be involved.  The woman can protect against pregnancy by not having sex.  Sadly not many people (of either sex) will live up to their responsibilities - isn't that a reason why many FSUW look for foreign husbands???  In that case are these pro-abortion FSUW really any better than the men they detest?

d) What if the child is handicapped?  So what?  In China, "What if the child is female?" - afterall a female life is less valuable than a male life so is it OK to abort those useless little female children?  Aborting a life because it's not "perfect" denies the fact that NONE OF US are perfect.

I've read all of the angles our pro-abortion members can come up with but one that really gets to me is them blaming Christianity for the objections to abortion.

I know any good Christian would be opposed to abortion but I believe any good person would be to.  To me it is an act against humanity because it is unthinkable that any animal would consciously terminate a new life as a convenience.

Anyway,  we can't change the mind of abortionists because their own motivations drive them much more than reasoned thinking does.  Let's just hope karma does it's job!

Kuna

[Gtex]

My above post you questioned was referenced in the title to Mendeleyev.  It was directed to his post, the last on page six.  All should read, it references the love of a father for that "theoretical" child so many others here are willing to abandon. 

Your posting about some of the women involved (or married) to members here was unfortunately not elegant (mind you I do not dispute the truth).   Most are not aware that abortion was the de facto (again mind you not de jure) system of state approved birth control in the FSU. 

Greg should not be expected to understand this now obscure fact and his wife like many others here had probably not reached sexual maturity by the fall of the FSU.  His taking your remark as personally offensive is reasonable and understandable as is also the fact the offense was probably not Ronnies' intention.  I presume the rate is now down considerable, though still high.

For the rest of us, we should remain thankful we were not each viewed as an inconvenience to someone with the power to at some time in our development  decide the fate of our existence.   Thanks, Mom and Dad!

[Misha]

Most are not aware that abortion was the de facto (again mind you not de jure) system of state approved birth control in the FSU.

Well, the Soviet Union collapsed close to two decades ago (17 years to be precise). Condoms can now be bought in every "apteka" and in a number of other stores and kiosks. Birth control pills can be bought in the same "aptekas" without a prescription.

[Misha]

That's right Misha.  I have a acquaintance who is now married but told me that in his 5-year search he engaged in sexual intercourse with 16 different RWs. 

Man, I hope he was smart enough to wear a condom. If not, he should be getting himself checked out at the nearest STD clinic 

[OlgaH]

Yes, in 1920 the abortions in Russia were legalized. It was started in 1913 with the 12th conference of Russian doctors in memory of Nikolay Ivanovich Pirogov, when most of members of the conference uttered their opinions for the legalization because of high rate of women's death as consequence of illegal abortions. More over at that time the whole new Soviet country was in poverty, thousands and thousands orphans and abandoned children needed the places to live in and also food.

During the Stalin's time the abortions were forbidden, but at the same time new GULAGs for children of parents who were arrested as "prisoners of State" were built...

The illegal abortions again were a cause of  high rate of women's death. After the Stalin's time the abortions were again legalized.

There was a famous Soviet phrase: "There is not any sex in our country!" No sex, no good contraception and of course it was very improper to talk with children about sex.  Strange as it may seem, but accidental pregnancy happened. It was so immoral to be an unmarred woman with a child... Such woman was like a whore and her child had unofficial label "podzabornik" - "born under fence".

But the Soviet government supported families with many children. No, it was not so big money. But they had benefits, more over the medical service and education was free during the Soviet time, and families with many children were given free apartments. Also there was a special medal - "Mother-heroine"

Our neighbor was pregnant every year. But her children were studying in the school for duraks. I remember how I helped her oldest children with their home work. Some of her children were born dead, some of them died after three months. One her girl died at the age 4. She was cute girl. That mother-"heroine" did not care so much about health of her children, she was not alcoholic  but sometimes she drank with her husband. No, she did not had the medal from the Soviet government. She just did not want to work and to be pregnant every year was an easy way to get some money from the Soviet government. One thing was good - they were not mean people. I don't remember if the father or mother beat the children, and their children were  harmless duraks.

Post Soviet time... the rationing system, the empty shelves in stores and big lines. People were losing their jobs...  after all they lost their savings dew to default, economic crisis and unemployment...   The new Government did not care...

BTW the current Russian Government doesn't care about birth rate, just takes on some expression, and of course the government will not support an alone mother with a free apartments and money for food, cloth, medicine and so on. If a woman cannot support her child she can make abortion according to the Russian law about abortion, also it concerns a family that can not  afford second or third child financially.

Women and men who just don't want to have a child... but accidental pregnancy happened.  They don't want a child, they are not mothers and fathers by their nature and you could do nothing about it. OK, abortions are forbidden. A woman can make illegal abortion and die, somebody will say she deserve it, also she can place her unwanted child in boarding school and forget about him, if her child will be lucky may be he will be placed in nice boarding school and later adopted, if not the child till his age 18 will live in one of many terrible boarding schools in Russia where his psyche will be destroyed, also the woman (or couple) can keep the unwanted child... and hate him...

This is the terrible fact...
February, 21 2008
Every year in Russia in Russian families about 2 millions of children are beaten by their parents and some of the children die, about 7 000 children are victims of sexual violence, more than 50 thousands of children leave home and run away from parents trying to escape domestic violence... 
http://www.newsru.com/russia/21feb2008/nasilie.html

   

 

[steviej]

We've had a lot of debate from the moral and spritual point of view, but not much from the biological point of view. I have extensive graduate work experience in biology and physical chemistry, and I can tell you, from the perspective of a guy in the laboratory, there is not much "magical" or "beautiful" about it, although it is fascinating. A fruit fly has 60% the same genomes as we humans do. A dog is more than 99% the same as us. In the first few weeks after fertilization, we go through distinct lizard and bird phases, vestiges of long ago evolution. Things go wrong. Offspring come out with extra limbs stuck on, limbs missing, pieces of their brains missing or disorganized. Nature is messy and never meant to come out correctly all the time. The debate on either side ( "women's rights" vs "pro-life" ) seems so abstract and disconnected from the messy visceral reality of all this. For all other species, and humans as well until recently, if things came out wrong, they toss it out and try again, no big deal, busines as usual.

However, I am concerned about the overall birth rate for Caucasians (for you Russians, I mean white people). We are down to 1.7/couple globally, which means fairly rapid extinction. That might be a good enough reason to try to stem the tide of abortions. We're running out of ammo in Darwin's field of fire ...

[deccie]

Deccie, you seem to be arguing for sterization of poor women.  Or if that is not your argument you have certainly laid the foundation for it.

that is not my argument.

The world does not "tolerate" children living in poverty and malnutrition, at least not that part of the world you seem to be trying to back into a corner of your own making.  No evidence suggests (unless you want to bring in George Carlin as a witness) that the same people who oppose abortion are the same ones who tolerate the suffering of children.

Really? so the financial assets of the many organised religion's of the world today could not help prevent that which happens on a daily basis? Many Christian groups who oppose abortion may mouth words that oppose abortion and express regret at the loss of children but not every "Christian" group is involved in saving those already born from poverty or death. If it were so intolerable why would not the last dollar of these organisations be spent in that area?

When I see commercials on TV soliciting funds or sponsorships for poor children in improverish countries, the organization is almost always backed by a Christian group; Feed the Children, Christian Children's Fund, et.al.  I believe it is these same Christians whom you criticize as being hypocrites. 

I didn't realise these groups had such a monopoly on the feild of Chrisitanity Ronnie.

The facts show they are totally consistent on the issues of children.  Where I wish they might come out stronger publicly is against capital punishment - many are against it, BTW. 

Their words may be consistent but their deeds are not. Some may do work in that area but it hardly dominates the work of the Christian churches now does it. (And this comes from a child sponsor through one of these organisations by the way)

[Jet]

If it were so intolerable why would not the last dollar of these organisations be spent in that area?

How do you expect those nuns to keep sportin' around town in their brand new SUV's?

Organized charities rank right up there with insurance companies & swimming pool contractors  :evil:

[mendeleyev]

GTEX, thank you for your nice comments and we certainly are excited about the wedding of such a special daughter.  She has come a long way since birth and I'm very proud of her progress.


GREG in GA, like Misha (whom I believe has also lived in Russia?) it is not a pleasant surprise but a very large percentage of FSU ladies have had at least one abortion.  The current government's financial incentives to RW to have babies has been presented to the Russian public for this purpose: 

- To stem the loss of the white ethnic population (which has a negative growth rate) in the face of the Russian Muslim population which is on a rapid growth swing.  Russian culture and race face eventual extinction at current statistics.

When then-Pres/now-PM Putin introduced those new incentives it was clearly stated that one of the objectives was to slow the abortion rate which is among the world's highest. 

Putin pointed out that given a negative growth birth rate, Russia would soon be unable to defend it's own borders.  Consider that the USA has a population of 300+ million placed in 4 time zones and has a combination of large cities and stretches of near-isolated territory.  Then look at Russia's 1/6 of the earth's land mass, possessing every element found in the periodic table, huge gas/oil reserves, and some of the world's largest reservoirs of fresh water are found within Russia's borders.  Yet how can a country stretched over 11 time zones protect it's borders and resources with only 146 million in population?

Two Muslim republics represent almost 40% of Russia's natural resources.

While Putin expresses alarm about the fact that abortion among Russian women is almost universal, it's not that he has adopted a pro-life stand and plans to run for office in the USA as a Republican.  Russian white birth statistics are a concern to Putin as several large Republics represent Islamic majority populations and it is those republics who make the most noise about eventual independence/breakaway from the Russian Federation. Its not that far down the road when the military will be dominated by the very people who ethnic white Russians fear the most.

[Wienerin]

I'm not even sure how this "traditional" line came to their marketing slogan.   Russian women I know from my generation and generations of my parents and grandparents are very far from "traditional" in many ways.   And new generation of Russian women are getting very westernized that is also far from traditional.   So it's just an empty promise.   

I'm at a loss either to understand what is called traditional for the scions of 3 generation of Soviet life. To work like a horse all her life, mostly alone, raise children - also alone, be deprived of the most things considered natural feminine heriage - and remain feminine, contrive without things, money, opportunity, always considered second best - behind the state's hypocritical spoutings about equality, sheltering of mothers and children, etc. ? Traditional? My pretty plump ass!