h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Very few people ever actually think about abortion. We've got this Emotion-Block in our minds, a sort of pink fog that keeps clouding your vision the harder you try to reason with it. It either screams at you "Abortion is MURDER!" or "They're trying to take our rights away! BURN THEM!"

So let's stop, and construct a simple thought model:

Here, as Exhibit A, we have a four-way cell-split, about a second after conception. It's literally nothing more than four linked cells. I don't think I can think of this as a person, and I can't really see it having a soul. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. This is just a cell-growth, if a cell-growth with definite possibilities. If it was destroyed I think the only thing we'd all miss would be that possibility.

Exhibit B is a baby, fresh out of the delivery room. Cute, ain't it? If someone hurt the little tyke, and I think everyone here will back me up on this, I would personally take your arms and legs off with a pocketknife. Exhibit B is a human being. If souls exist, he has one. Killing him is flat out wrong.

So there's the problem. When and where does Exhibit A turn into Exhibit B? It has to happen sometime. And we can't use the moment of birth as a marker anymore, because that's an arbitrary aspect of mere location. So find that dividing line, and we can all go to sleep happy, and stop worrying about all this stupid side crap.

I dunno. The fetus starts to grow a brain around week 10, its heart starts beating at about week 11, it starts to show gender around week 12, and it begins to emit brain wave patterms around week 14. But even a baby that is carried to term exhibits less intelligence than, say, a cat or a dog. I don't think there is a clear line that can be drawn.

You're abnsoulutly right, no one ever does think about the abortion debate rationally. I seriously doubt that it's possible, but it looks like h2g2 may be the sole exception to this.

no, it's not the sole exception...

it's just not something people will talk about. have you noticed that while there are many threads, all are less than one page long? and some have no more than 3 or 4 posts. no one wants to say. it's too big a subject. i can't say anything for the climate in other nations, but you have to admit that in america no one will discuss it for fear of social persecution. if you were vehemently pro choice, but you knew all your buddies and even your boss were all pro life, would you go spouting your opinions all over the place? if no one thought about it, it wouldn't be an issue on political platforms, and furthermore, the republican party would not be disowning pro choice candidates. (see what speaking out will get you? booted off your party.)

i guess what i'm meaning to say is that there is a social stigma attached to the issue of abortion. the other thing i've noticed in these threads is that while everyone has a mild opinion (except for tempest), no one has experience to validate that opinion. no one is willing to come forward.

but yes, it would be nice if h2g2 were the exception to the rule. it would be great for people to share their stories with others, since your stories on this issue are usually something you have to bear alone. maybe an honest discussion between the two sides would nurture understanding, making it less of an issue with less of a stigma.

but i'm not going to hold my breath. i'll just hold my story.

I don't know if it's fear of social persecution. It's just a matter of politeness. I have views that are at odds with many of my co-workers and friends. (They tend to be highly conservative or very liberal respectivly. They are occasionally christians.) I don't see the need in upsetting them by waiving my politics all over the place.

I won't go any further, as I don't want to offend anyone.

Good point - the ideological apartheid which allows the extremes to feel that everybody agrees with them simply because nobody has the guts (or perhaps the inclination, since it's usually taken as an invitation to try and convert you to their extreme point of view) to disagree,

The only voice which is never heard is the moderate. A good fight makes a much better story.

In reply to the first article I thought one small thing was overlooked. The points of exhibit A and exhibit B were expressed quite well. However, I thought, perhaps there was a jump to the conclusion.
It was stated that exhibit 'A' was merely a four-way cell-split.
It was also stated that exhibit 'B' was a newborn infant. The differences of characteristics were well defined.
The question brought up about this is when does the four-way cell-split become a baby?

Now my question is: What is the difference between a baby and a man (or woman)?

There is a distinct difference in characteristics here as well. A mature adult of our race has personality, a name, a fully developed body, and the ability of cognition. The list goes on.
But most anyone would say a baby is a part of the human race. Perhaps I'm being a bit hasty in my asking. But, why is it then, that the initiation of the cellular development is alienated from human development?
It is not a question of characteristic. We know very well already that 4-way cell-split becomes a baby, and that a baby becomes a man. In essence, does not a four-way cell-split become, through time, a man?

If it is now not a question of characteristic, what then is the question? Is the question of awareness or personality? If so then we have a horde of other questions in which to reply.

What I'm saying is that there is no point at which anyone could say anywhere along the line of development that a human is not human.

What I keep sensing is that most of us live in a Christianised world, so even if we feel differently from the unthinking, emotional mob, most of our reactions spring from the religious inculcation we've been subjected to indirectly all this time.

I'm pro-choice and male, so I really don't feel qualified to be passing judgement on this anyway....although I can hypothetically see where I'd want the option.

Those that WANT to be pro-choice and have to strike a balance with the no-choice movement are usually the ones who opt for the clinical 'where do we draw the line' option, similar to 'killing' a brain-dead person or stopping resuscitation when a patient's decidedly keener to stay dead than alive.

America's stuck in a weird position because the nation's founded on a religious freedom ethic which usually displays an amazing unacceptance/intolerance of other theologies when the primary Christian-White ethic has been violated. That ethic runs through all America, although some will contest it vehemently.

Having said that, will there be any conclusion to this dicussion (apart from rants like this, I mean)? And will that conclusion affect any changes in the world? THAT would be the important response...

Fruitbat

I can not say considering the diversity of views on the topic that there will ever be a conclusion to this discussion. But trying is better than not trying.
But as for its affects upon the world I myself doubt it will have any great impact. The product of this discussion, however small, cannot itself have a negative affect on anything. Communication, even if it is just familiarizing different people, who are adamantly attached to their beliefs with other views, that by itself, is beneficial. But I would agree that there would be little influence both inside and out of this little circle of researchers.

We have now brought up the subject of theology influence affecting the thought processes of our minds. It is true, ‘Christian thinking’ does affect all of us. However, it sounded to me as if the previous author thought this was a bad thing. Christian thinking is, I think, too often put aside without a real look at it for what it is.
True, the anti-abortion activists use the Bible as a reference, as well as for some of their slogan criteria. And I would agree with them that under the premise of the Bible and Christianity, abortion would, without a doubt, appear wrong. Many who are reading this are probably thinking ‘Surely that is a biased and unopen opinion!' It is. But does that make the theory irrelevant? No! That is throwing out the entirety of an idea, from one specific assertion, without looking at it as a whole. A single biased opinion does not automatically give grounds to the abolition of a theory.

Many folk I know think of Christianity and associated paradoxes as a hamper to progress in our society. I agree: it does slow down our social progress. But before we go any further. To where are we socially progressing? And if that future should turn out in a bad way, what would we do then? I do not believe one could rightly say Christian thinking is slowing down social progress in a negative way. Rather, the Christian paradox, as much as it may slow things down we, as individuals and ethnic groups, are still progressing to some end; in essence Christian thinking is one of the greatest balancing factors in our society that keep us from progressing too quickly. It keeps us on our toes, helps us look for more alternatives and imminent consequences.

Christian thinking does make ‘un-biased’ discussion difficult, especially upon the subject of abortion. However, Christian thinking, affects so many people, as the author of the last article so clearly pointed out. And I point out that, that very statement is the point that makes it so essential to discuss this, and any other topics like it, all the more. The fact that it does indeed affect so many people is the reason to attempt some form of resolution.

Wow...

Good answer, Toli.

Now, personally, I'm just trying to come at this from a few new angles. It's as if the two sides stopped actually arguing a long time ago, and now they're just trying to shout each other down.

And there's a good, simple reason for that: somewhere within their mind every pro-choicer or pro-lifer must have a little voice that says "What if I'm wrong?"

If a pro-life person is wrong, that means they've been trying to take away a basic human right. Worse, it means that their entire notions of humanity are probably wrong. If the fetus isn't human then where, exactly, does the soul come in? Does it even exist?

But the Pro-choicer gets the real shaft. Because if they're wrong... If they're wrong then we've been murdering children. We've been ending the lives of creatures as sentient and self-aware as you or I. They've unknowingly aided a Holocaust.

So you yell, and you scream, and you do everything possible to drown that little nagging voice; and you convince yourself of your own self-righteousness because the alternative is unthinkable.

Creepy.

Let's try it Socraticly:
Q: Killing people is wrong, right?
A: Of course.
Q: Especially innocent people?
A: Sure.
Q: Are children people?
A: They must be.
Q: Are babies people?
A: Almost certainly.
Q: Are fetuses people?
A: ...
Q: You don't know, do you?
A: No.
Q: What is a person?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: Are you a person?
A: Of course.
Q: Is an animal a person?
A: I don't think so. Some do.
Q: So what makes a person is what seperates you from an animal?
A: Seems a good guess.
Q: And that would be?
A: Reason, of course. Logic. Self-Awareness. Laughter. Creativity.
Q: Does a baby have these?
A: At least in some part, yes.
Q: Does a fetus?
A: Don't know. Maybe.
Q: Is "maybe" a good enough answer to swing the descision, considering the ramifications?
A: Good question...

I've always thought that the possibility of a Dolphin's sapiency was a good enough reason to keep people from killing them. It seems strange to apply that to animals, but not your own kin.

To me, it seems even stranger to imagine that a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy (i.e. the time when most abortions take place) is capable of logic or creativity! Where's your evidence for that?

If it isn’t a human fetus then what is it? I cannot think of it as a dog or any other mammalian fetus growing in a human womb. It is Human. I don’t think there have an argument there.

Here are the questions we have:

Is human fetus is capable of thinking? Does it have personality? Is it aware of itself?

Now my thought is, are these things even important?
We don’t know if all mentally handicapped folk actually think and are aware of themselves, are they suddenly not people? Does that give us the right to terminate them?

Because something doesn’t think (or something that we don’t know if it does but we believe it to have an inept capablity of thought) doesn’t give grounds to terminate it.

What a remarkable imagination you have, Toli.
I don't think anyone's disputing that a foetus, even at that early stage when it's often naturally aborted, is of human origin. Of course it is.
So is my hair, but I still reserve the right to get it cut. I believe that it doesn't mind too much. Likewise, I would suggest, a woman has the right to choose what should happen to the contents of her womb, up to the point when it might be capable of independent life.
A great deal of energy and emotion is being spent here on the question of whether a foetus at a few week's gestation can think or feel. It is a valid question.
But why is the focus here, instead of on the certainty that a woman of child-bearing age most definitely CAN think and feel - and that being forced to carry an unwanted baby to term is a massive denial of her personal liberty and invasion of her identity?

Now, on the women's rights issue. We should all look much closer at the emotions of the women. That's a good point Ormondroyd. I'm glad you brought it up.

Has anyone heard about Post- Abortion Syndrome?

It is, for those who don't know, an emotional scarring that is irreversible. Most (not all) women suffer this after they have an abortion. I know of 3 women I have met who underwent an abortion and have undergone this affliction. Originally these women were pro-choice. But somehow after the abortion they all felt terrible guilt and fell into depression. This melancholy hung over then, they felt like they had killed something, and some have claimed their depression hung over them so heavily that many wanted to die. Many have committed suicide because of this depression known as Post- Abortion Syndrome. Here I have an article I believe has some power of say in this matter:

" 'My childhood was brutal. I was abandoned by my father when I was two-and-a-half. Then when he reappeared in my life again at the age of eight, it became worse. I survived incest, starvation, and beatings.
I clung to life. It was my two abortions that nearly destroyed me. When I became pregnant for the fifth time in seven years, my doctor asked me if I really thought I should "continue the pregnancy." Abortion had never occurred to me until he suggested it. My husband said, "It's your decision. Do what you want," and left for work. Naively, I began looking for women who had had abortions. But I couldn't find anyone who would admit to having had one. I asked my doctor and he said, "It only takes a few minutes and it's over." Having already had four babies, I am now appalled at how ignorant I was about fetal development. My doctor said the baby--at six-and-a-half weeks--was "just a blob," and I believed him. Afterwards, before I even got home, I began to cry. It didn't help. When finally I stopped crying on the outside, I kept crying on the inside. I felt so dirty and alone. Something deep inside of me froze, I think. I dreamed a lot about snow and ice, as well as about babies. I felt cheated, betrayed, and manipulated. I went to counseling and the psychologist said, "forgive yourself," and "let yourself go on." She didn't say how. Two years later, I had another abortion as an act of self-punishment. I wanted to die, or at least go crazy so I could escape the torment, the nightmares about babies, the self-disgust and the degradation I felt. I wasn't told that there could be complications which wouldn't be discovered for years. I wasn't told that the strength of the suction machine is such that it can turn a uterus nearly completely inside out. I had to have an early hysterectomy because of it. I wasn't told that after having an abortion an unbelievable self-hatred would consume me and lead to distrust, suspicion, and the utter inability to care about myself, or others--including my four children. I wasn't told that hearing babies cry would trigger such anger that I wouldn't be able to be around babies at all. I wasn't told that it would become impossible to look at my own eyes in a mirror. Or that my confidence would be so shaken that I would become unable to make important life decisions. My self-hatred kept me from pursuing my goal of becoming a registered nurse. I didn't think I deserved success. I wasn't told that I would come to hate all those who advised me to have my abortions, because they were my accomplices in the murders of my babies. I wasn't told that having an abortion with my husband's consent would end up causing me to hate the father of my children, or that I would be unable to sustain ANY satisfying, lasting, fulfilling relationships. I wasn't told that I could become suicidal in the fall of every year, when both of my babies should have been born.
I wasn't told that on the birthdays of my living children, I would remember the two for whom I would never make a birthday cake, or that on Mother's Day I would remember the two who would never send me a card, or that every Christmas I would remember the two for whom there would be no presents.
My abortions were supposed to be a "quick-fix" for my problems, but they didn't tell me there is no "quick-fix" for regrets.
I went to a psychiatric hospital and they gave me shock treatments. They didn't help. The nightmares continued. I became a workaholic. Work didn't help.
I became a compulsive eater. Food didn't help.
I became an anorexic as another form of self-punishment. That came close to killing me; I had two strokes.
I tried alcohol. It only helped temporarily. The torment would still be there when I woke up. That effort to escape the pain only lasted two months.'"

Powerful eh? Now I believe it is quite clear that there are often horrendous emotional issues here. Is this just a one incident thing? Not at all. If one should look around they will find dozens upon dozens of such articles. I am aware this article does appeal to pity somewhat. I have posted it just to be sure everyone could see a glimmer of what this Post-Abortion Syndrome thing is really about.

I do not believe the rights of women are being dealt with. Most who debate this are concerned with the image and liberty issue. As important as those are to one's vanity, I do not think all are truly aware of this emotional consequence. A common stereotype of women nowadays is depression. Is that an image anyone would want to have?

As for the physical health of the woman I believe several things are being overlooked here as well. Many women after an abortion suffer hemorrhaging (some have died from this), infertility and serious infection.

This is what I think of it: During pregnancy there are the release of many hormones in the female body that affect the health and psyche of the individual. When the natural pregnancy procedures are interrupted, I believe, only problems can arise.

This is highly emotive stuff. Most of the arguments used on both sides of the aboriton debate are emotive, come to that.

Me, I'm much more pragmatic. Although I am vehemently anti death penalty (another subject altogether), I am for legal abortion up to the age at which medical science can reasonably be expected to sustein independent life - currently somewhere between 20 and 24 weeks, I believe.

I take this view for two fundamental reasons:

1. I have no right to impose Christian morality on others; I must therefore allow of a humanistic approach, which could reasonably encompass a woman's right to abort a foetus which is not yet capable of independent life.

2. Historically, the effcet of restricting legal abotions is to drive desperate women underground. Rich women will go to countries where abortion is legal, poor ones will go to unlicensed, unregulated backstreet abortionists - often with fatal results. This is happening now in Islamic countries, and it will most assuredly happen if Dubyah has his way and abortion is heavily restricted in the USA.

It is a fascinating paradox that the US constitution specifically bans state-sponsored religion, yet the arguments put forward by those who would have the state control abortion are predominantly religious.

This post has been removed.

Fragilis, I commend you on your ability to bring across your point so well. However I believe that perhaps you are passing this over a bit too quickly without due consideration.

(By the by, I went to both those websites, the APA and Dr Koop sites, and found nothing on Post- Abortion Syndrome, if you could direct me to these articles I would be most grateful, I'm afraid I'm not very web wise.)

I will admit most of the sources upon the Post- Abortion Syndrome are indeed pro-life (or anti-choice, anti-abortion, however one cares to word it) references. That does not delegitamize the possibility of its existence. But to ignore the obvious grief of these women, and call it merely stress is a serious and blind mistake.

However, stated in the last posting, was that these women Fragilis knew who had abortions passed through a time of guilt and/or mourning much like the loss of a loved one. Is that not traumatic of itself? Seriously, abortion is supposed to be the easy fix to an unwanted pregnancy. But if the result after an abortion is a flood of emotion would that not indicate there was something amiss, would it not? Post- Abortion Syndrome does not have to be so extreme as the one in the article I had in my last posting. There are milder cases that most women do suffer. Or in rare cases not at all. But almost every woman who has had an abortion went through some grief, however mild, after the fact. This is what I am calling Post-Abortion Syndrome. We both know people who went through this, they all experienced some guilt or grief, there is no denying it. This is Post- Abortion Syndrome it exists; I assure you.

But what about the experts? Nationally acclaimed 'experts' nowadays are often very biased toward what is 'politically correct' and to the popular opinion. True, anti-choice activists are biased toward the Bible and their religion. The differences on these sources are the differences of two extremes. Both extremes are each based on a very different and separate premise. Which one is right? Or are neither in the right? I'm not sure I could answer those questions. Though undoubtedly one must be closer than the other.

Here are my thoughts:

However I suspect these so called 'experts' of fabrication more than I do of anti-abortion activists. Why? Most anti-abortion activists follow a strict moral code: most would say they believe in God and that it was an offense against this God to lie. I believe I can trust that, not for the words, but if God should mean anything to them at all they will follow what they believe pretty consistently.

Why Don't I trust experts? I believe it is these people who are benefiting from the abortion practice. How so? This is what I'm thinking: The likelihood of the cure for cancer being (if one were found) announced is far from a real possibility. Why? There are so many jobs in the field of cancer research that the cure for it would put so many people out of work that it would have some negative economical impact. Comparatively, abortion clinics are huge businesses much like the cancer research, yet even more wide spread. What's that supposed to mean? It means those clinics; the people who own them are rich. Why is that important? These people are affluent, they have say in the world. These people have the power of influence over what many folk will say publicly. Often times all the public hears is their side of the story, this is because they are rich, they can afford to generate biased results, and because they have an audience of people that rarely question their premise they need to publicize once. Experts, I warn, can be just as misleading as any one else.
What do they have to gain for this deception other than money? I have another theory about this. And that is simply this:
I believe men are taking advantage of women in the name of 'women's rights'.
The first reason: I've come to believe that abortion is encouraged by men in order to keep their wives or lovers from having children for a number of reasons: so they would not have to be bothered by raising children (whether they had the money or not, raising kids is undoubtedly a hassle), or very simply, so they their sexuality can continue uninterrupted.
There are a numerous of other reasons why men would not want their wife or lover to get pregnant and continue a pregnancy.

It is also true, there are reasons that a few women would, on their own, without outside influence, want to terminate their pregnancy, its regrettable, but true. And it's only fair that I say it. But I think these women make up a much smaller percentage of women than popularly thought.

The second reason I have is there is a huge market for abortion because women have been fooled into thinking that they were exercising their rights. People are getting rich. If abortion was seen in the proper light as a more risky operation I believe these clinic owners are concerned, not with women's rights, but merely money.

Now I'm not saying all men are chauvinist pigs. In most cases men have been deceived in the same way as women. Nor am I saying Women's Rights are bad. Personally I am for Women's Rights as long as it is in the bounds of reason. But I have to say this movement has been tricked into thinking that abortion is all about women's rights. It does, admittingly, play a small role. But I see little freedom in abortion itself. The only freedom is the right of choice. However, the consequences upon the bodies and minds of women is a terrible disservice that outweighs any idea of initial freedom, abortion is of itself a dehabilitating and imprisoning practice that is a discourtesy to the female gender.

Women can have the right to choose, that is their right by law. But I cannot now say it is a choice for the goodness and well-being of all individuals involved.

If we, as a human race, should continue this practice I believe it is the woman's right to know the possibilities and risks of an abortion, as well as the possible psychological effects upon their minds. It is their right.

when a legal abortion is performed in the u.s., the woman is given a very clear picture of what will happen to her, what to expect, and what the possible dangers are. rest assured.

toli, i fully support your right NOT to have an abortion. if you feel it is wrong for you, then by all means, carry a pregnancy to term. but how can it be justified for anyone to infringe upon my right to HAVE an abortion, if i feel it is right for me?

No I disagree, there have been too many people I've heard from who say they were manipulated by counselors to get an abortion. Abortion clinic faculty are known to call the fetus just a piece of 'tissue'. It's true the staff and doctors say this to keep the patient calm, but often are the times that the woman finds out what the fetus looked like at that age(most clinics won't even show the ultrasound of the womb). Most all clinics don't, though I sure they're supposed to, mention all the health risks involved.

Why else would there be warnings from women to women telling each other to be careful of which clinic to go to? No the warnings of these women are not without some cause. No clinic is quite the same. There are different policies at practically every one, no matter what the regulation is.

To be honest it is none of my business what you decide on this topic. If you feel it is right for you, then I will not be one to stand in your way. Though, I would be very reluctant to not advise you to do otherwise.

Like I said before, I'm not against choice. Choice is a good thing, it reflects the integrity of the people who upon this thing rely.

I am, consequently, against abortion, unless someone can here prove 3 things:
#1. That a fetus is somehow not worth more than any other animal(ie, that humans are not worth anything more than any other animal),
#2. That the female involved is not being harmed,
#3. And, lastly, that the fetus being aborted is not undergoing pain (if you ever read about saline injection and all the other methods they use for abortion I find most of them hard to believe we use at all, because they would be considered inhumane for use of termination upon any organism).