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

I must admit, I was lost. I wasn't sure if that response to Fragilis was supposed to be pro-choice or pro-life.

"How do you determine who needs to review an unwanted pregnancy?" You don't. This is exactly why you don't start applying knee-jerk legislation on the subject. By eliminating this, you leave the choice up to the future parents, the doctors, and anyone else that needs to be involved, like a guardian of one of the parents. Legislation doesn't work... just look at everything else government has ever tried to do.

No kidding. BTW, could anyone tell me exactly when the fetus starts to breath and when it's heart starts circulating blood? I want to post something on this, but am not sure of the actual facts.

Colonel Sellers:

>>I wasn't sure if that response to Fragilis was supposed to be pro-choice or pro-life.<<

I'm sorry for the confusion, I was trying to show why abortion is a black and white issue from both sides.

>>This is exactly why you don't start applying knee-jerk legislation on the subject.<<

Which is why the pro-choice stance is black and white. If it weren't, you couldn't say that you can't limit choice. To avoid so many negatives - If it was grey (from the perspective of choice), you could limit choice.

Do you (not just Colonel Sellers) still believe that abortion is black and white from the perspective of a woman's choice? The various examples raised just show how black and white this is.

from pro abortion rights: "you can't take away choice"
from anti abortion: "you can't justify homicide"

These absolutes, from different perspectives, show that this issue is not grey at all. What does this mean? There is a definite right and wrong.

I believe Fragilis already did a very fine job of showing when the mother is not in position to choose. Therefore, pro-choice is *not* black and white. At those points, it becomes the choice of others involved... the father, the guardian, or whoever else is appropriate. And, of course, the doctor.

Laws are black-and-white. The only way to keep abortion in the shades of grey is to keep it legal.

The anti-abortionist stance: I choose life.... regardless of the situation.
The pro-choice stance: I choose life, except when I choose abortion, based on the situation and my own moral values.

Which is black and white again?

Colonel Sellers:

>>I believe Fragilis already did a very fine job of showing when the mother is not in position to choose. Therefore, pro-choice is *not* black and white. At those points, it becomes the choice of others involved... the father, the guardian, or whoever else is appropriate. And, of course, the doctor.<<

So in those situations the mother has no choice. The choice has been taken away from her. Therefore, those cases do not involve the choice of a mother. They cannot be used to cloud the issue because they do not concern the main point-of-view of a pro abortion rites activist - the power of a woman to choose.

>>The anti-abortionist stance: I choose life.... regardless of the situation.
The pro-choice stance: I choose life, except when I choose abortion, based on the situation and my own moral values.<<

The anti-abortionist stance: I must choose life.... regardless of the situation.
The pro-choice stance: I can choose what ever I want, and that choice can't be taken away from me.

>>Which is black and white again?<<

They really both are, but they are black and white for different reasons. The anti-abortionist stance is black and white because of the child's life. The pro-choice stance is black and white because of the woman's rights.

You're mistaking the pro-choice advocates for being as dogmatic in their arguments as you are in yours. Whenever there is a birth, SOMEONE chooses whether or not it should be kept or aborted. The pro-lifers want to choose for everyone. The pro-choicers want to leave the door open.

As I said, Fragilis already demonstrated, under a pro-choice stance, when the choice should be taken away from the mother. It is not the woman's unalienable right to choose. She also should not have unilateral decision powers when there is a father involved who did not impregnate her through coercion or violence. Some people think they should. I think they should not. If a woman conceives my child, I intend to be a part of the decision process. And, depending on the circumstances, I may choose to raise my child, or I may choose abortion. But neither do I have unilateral decision powers in this event... the choice belongs to BOTH, the man and the woman, in this instance.

So, it's NOT all about women's rights, and so I ask again... which is black and white?

As I recall, MG, babies don't start breathing until the doctor slaps their behind, and by then, the kid's no longer a fetus. I don't know exactly when blood begins to circulate in the body of a fetus, but I imagine it's sometime around three months, give or take.

nosretep:

It is my opinion that until all women have absolute control over their reproduction systems (and men take responsibility as well), abortion will continue to patch the problem of unwanted pregnancies. I doubt that anyone here sees abortion as being a panacea for unwanted pregnancies. However, until the problem is eliminated, I think you will continue to find women getting abortions. The solution to your problem with abortions is not to eliminate the procedure, but to eliminate the want of the procedure. As I doubt that would be in our collective power, I support the option's continued availability.

-jb

Colonel Sellers:

>>You're mistaking the pro-choice advocates for being as dogmatic in their arguments as you are in yours.<<

Does that mean that you do not believe that I am wrong?

>>Whenever there is a birth, SOMEONE chooses whether or not it should be kept or aborted. The pro-lifers want to choose for everyone. The pro-choicers want to leave the door open.<<

We want everyone to choose life. We will help this cause through whatever means we can. You want everyone to have the choice of pregnancy. You will help this cause through whatever means you can.

>>As I said, Fragilis already demonstrated, under a pro-choice stance, when the choice should be taken away from the mother. It is not the woman's unalienable right to choose.<<

Really? But ultimately she has the choice. Whether she has the right to this choice is a different matter. I misunderstood the basic essence of pro-choice. I thought that it was not making decisions for someone else. Is this wrong? Are there times when you can make decisions for someone else?

>>She also should not have unilateral decision powers when there is a father involved who did not impregnate her through coercion or violence. Some people think they should. I think they should not. If a woman conceives my child, I intend to be a part of the decision process.<<

Unfortunatly, under our current laws, you do not have any decision-making power. And, depending on the circumstances, I may choose to raise my child, or I may choose abortion. But neither do I have unilateral decision powers in this event... the choice belongs to BOTH, the man and the woman, in this instance. There are those in this very conversation that should disagree with you Minesweep Goddess (posting 2) for instance (if she were still here) and several others that will remain nameless.

>>So, it's NOT all about women's rights<<

Really? I must say that I think you are in the minority here.

>>which is black and white?<<

You have said that nothing is really black and white, so I guess that your answer is neither. Mine is still both on the polar issues. I maintain further that your position is less tenable than that of a "true" pro-choicer.

jbliqemp:

>>As I recall, MG, babies don't start breathing until the doctor slaps their behind<<

Breath air at least.

>>I don't know exactly when blood begins to circulate in the body of a fetus, but I imagine it's sometime around three months, give or take.<<

Realize that the child never uses it's mother's blood. This would kill it.

>>However, until the problem is eliminated, I think you will continue to find women getting abortions.<<

Unfortunately yes. I do respect your opinion, don't get me wrong.

are you ready? here it comes......

nosretep: post 179 >>You pity me for clarity in seeing that the subtle differences all make it a woman's choice from your perspective?<< my prior comments had been made in reference to a previous post of yours, post 174, in which you said >>I think that everything is black and white.<< my pity was directed at your narrow vision of the world in general, not just your comments here. obviously your narrow world views affect your stance on all issues, since you see everything in black and white (reference post 174). how many beautiful things you must miss, being colorblind.

then, again in post 179 in reference to the statistics i cited, your response was >>You are saying that they don't apply and then use themin the same paragraph. If they don't apply, how do they further your argument?<< the answer is this; they do not further my argument. they were not intended to. they do, however apply to the subject that was then at hand. while these statistics do not make an argument for or against abortion rights, the legal status of abortion will have an impact on them. the impact is a consequence that you fail to see, which probably goes back to the narrow-minded issue, see above. also, in post 179, in reference to the hunting and abortion argument (which i must admit was very short-sighted of me, i should stop and think about who i'm attempting to communicate with before i bring up ideas beyond your ability to comprehend; my apologies), you asked >>In this light, how are they similar?<< they are issues that have effects beyond the range of their immediate natures. in effect, they have consequences that a narrow view will fail to see (primarily for lack of desire to. consequential impacts tend to complicate issues that people like you would like to keep simple for their own purposes. if you can delude yourself into believing it is a simple issue, then it doesn't matter what the opposition has to say because they're going to be wrong.)

moving along to post 183, in which you said >>These absolutes, from different perspectives, show that this issue is not gray at all. What does this mean? That there is a definite right and wrong.<< but, obviously, as is proven by this very debate, there is NOT a definite right and wrong. and that very fact (that there is not a definite right and wrong) means that shades of gray exist. if there truly was a DEFINITE right and wrong, then abortion would already be illegal or uncontested, everyone would be in agreement, and this thread would have never been started.

then later in post 183, in response to colonel sellers, i believe, you commented >>So in those situations the mother has no choice.<< in order to clarify this for you, it doesn't mean that the mother's choice is eliminated, it means that the mother's choice is compromised. it must take into account other factors.

briefly jbligemp jumped in, and in addition to other very intelligent comments, said >>The solution to your problem with abortions is not to eliminate the procedure, but to eliminate the want of the procedure. As I doubt that would be in our collective power, I support the option's continued availability.<< all i can say.... AMEN.

in post 188, nosretep asked colonel sellers >>Does that mean that you do not believe that I am wrong?<< i can't speak for sellers, but i wanted you to know that i don't believe you are wrong. while you believe that you are right, i believe that you are misguided. you lack the ability to see the entire issue, and without that ability, i don't see how you can make a truly informed opinion.

post 188 again, >>We want everyone to choose life. We will help this cause through whatever means we can.<< when you eliminate the alternative, it does not leave a "choice". >>We want everyone to choose life<< what you really want is for there not to be a choice, thereby punishing those who have done the unforgivable deed of getting pregnant by accident. you can "choose" any words you like to present your argument. they all mean essentially the same thing. >>We want everyone to choose life.<< no you don't. you want to force those who would benefit from a choice to suffer from lack of one. you want to punish them because they are bad people for wanting a choice to begin with.

>>And, depending on the circumstances, I may choose to raise my child, or I may choose abortion.<< nosretep, i honestly never thought i'd see you post that. now i really don't know what to think. but you realize, that if you had your way, you wouldn't have a choice. how can you fight to eliminate choice, then turn around and say that you would excercise your right to choose?

I just wanted to pop in to say that there isn't, to my knowledge, any such thing as a "true pro-choicer."

It is very common for pro-choice people to have different opinions about society, ethics, and all sorts of other things. But this does not cause us to bicker back and forth about who is right and who isn't. We respect our differences, plain and simple. For that reason, it may seem that we present a solid front of opinion -- but looking beneath the surface will reveal a different picture. We're better understood as a mosaic of opinion with a small center of agreement.

So the stereotype attached to pro-choice views is just that. While *somebody* out there probably fulfills that stereotype, there is no real majority perspective you can assign to us. Hence, arguing against the "true pro-choice" view is akin to tilting at windmills. You're likely to alienate your perceived competitor rather than defeat him.

broelan:

>>they do not further my argument. they were not intended to. they do, however apply to the subject that was then at hand. while these statistics do not make an argument for or against abortion rights, the legal status of abortion will have an impact on them.<<

? They do not further your argument, and do not impact abortion rights, but they impact the legal status of abortion. Is there no connection between abortion rights and the legal status of abortion? I must assume that I misunderstood.

>>the impact is a consequence that you fail to see<<

I thought that we were talking about abortion rites, and you say here that there is no connection there.

>>they are issues that have effects beyond the range of their immediate natures. in effect, they have consequences that a narrow view will fail to see<<

I believe that this is a false analogy. I need you to show me, not tell me that they are similar.

>>there is NOT a definite right and wrong.<<

That was under the assumption that EITHER the child is a human or you can't take away a woman's choice.

>>and that very fact (that there is not a definite right and wrong) means that shades of gray exist. if there truly was a DEFINITE right and wrong, then abortion would already be illegal or uncontested, everyone would be in agreement, and this thread would have never been started.<<

I believe that the arguments are to disagreements as to the standards for right and wrong.

>>in post 188, nosretep asked colonel sellers >>Does that mean that you do not believe that I am wrong?<< i can't speak for sellers, but i wanted you to know that i don't believe you are wrong. while you believe that you are right, i believe that you are misguided. you lack the ability to see the entire issue, and without that ability, i don't see how you can make a truly informed opinion.<<

Then this discussion does have value, at least to me.

>>what you really want is for there not to be a choice<<

I want them to not choose death.

>>thereby punishing those who have done the unforgivable deed of getting pregnant by accident.<<

It is not unforgivable. You must however live with the consequences.

>>no you don't. you want to force those who would benefit from a choice to suffer from lack of one. you want to punish them because they are bad people for wanting a choice to begin with.<<

They are not bad people. I hope that I have never said this. I do not hate anyone who has had an abortion. I would not be a christian if I did. Instead I would deserve anything that bad that you can say to me and more. I do not want to punish anyone. I believe that the child is alive, and I want them to repect the life of the child. I am sorry if you hate me because of this.

>>nosretep, i honestly never thought i'd see you post that.<<

That was Colonel Sellers. I may have quoted him and forgotten the brackets.

>>how can you fight to eliminate choice, then turn around and say that you would excercise your right to choose?<<

I wouldn't say that.

Fragilis the Melodical:

>>I just wanted to pop in to say that there isn't, to my knowledge, any such thing as a "true pro-choicer."<<

Really? I must say that I have taken the views presented here to be under a context of a woman's right to choose. I am sorry if I misunderstood. So, what is "pro-choice"?

I'm sorry, norestep. It isn't that I can't reply to your last post. I'm just not feeling very motivated to. I fear that no matter how much effort I put into this discussion, I will only be "misunderstood" some more.

So I'm going to take a day or two away from this thread. Probably one of two things will happen. Either I will feel refreshed and ready to try again from a different angle, or I will have decided the conversation simply isn't worth my time.

While I want very much to be helpful, there are only so many times I can go around in circles making similar points with different semantics before I begin to feel terribly seasick. After the last few rounds, I'm feeling a bit ill.

Fragilis the Melodical:

That's ok. You just made a point that totally took me aback. When do you draw the line as to when a woman's choice is forfeit? Who decides that? Well, apparently the parties involved. But isn't the main impact on the woman.... I see the circles that we are getting into, but that is why I thought it important to view this as a black and white issue. Otherwise we never will have an answer. We have people like me saying that a woman should not have the right to choose an abortion because there is a human life involved (note that I said right). I had assumed that was the only thing in context, apparently not.... Perhaps some of you are satisfied by this issue never being decided. Perhaps some of you are willing to abide by whatever the government decides (not from looking at www.plannedparenthood.com).

thanks, jbliqemp. what i was going to say was, until then, is the fetus actually alive yet? i mean, how do we check to see whether someone is alive? A: we check to see if they have a pulse(or if they are breathing, but they can be not breathing and still be alive, otherwise anyone holding their breath would be dead).(if we're not sure wheather they are, that is.) if i'm wrong, please correct me, but you can't kill something that isn't alive in the first place.

Minesweep Goddess:

>>i mean, how do we check to see whether someone is alive? A: we check to see if they have a pulse(or if they are breathing, but they can be not breathing and still be alive, otherwise anyone holding their breath would be dead).(if we're not sure wheather they are, that is.) if i'm wrong, please correct me, but you can't kill something that isn't alive in the first place.<<

A more scientific way is to check for brainwaves, but we discussed this a while back. My definition of life is that which opposes death. Therefore a zygote is alive and the egg and sperm are alive. The question is when is it a human life. My opinion is that it is a human at conception when its genetic code is set.

"Perhaps some of you are willing to abide by whatever the government decides ." - I don't think we've reached the point where we need permission to procreate, a la China. And I've never been a fan of letting the government decide ANYTHING. God help us if they get involved in anything more than they already have...

"My opinion is that it is a human at conception when its genetic code is set." - The key word here is *opinion*. There are as many opinions on when life begins as there are people in the world. Yet you would revoke the right to choose for everyone based on an opinion. That would be like abolishing rock music on the opinion that it causes deviant behavior. It is a point that cannot be verified scientifically, because it is basically a philosophical question. In that case, you cannot inflict your minority opinion on the rest of society through legislation. That is simply not the way our governments are allowed to behave.

Colonel Sellers:

>>I've never been a fan of letting the government decide ANYTHING.<<

>>In that case, you cannot inflict your minority opinion on the rest of society through legislation. That is simply not the way our governments are allowed to behave.<<

What if the majority opinion is that abortion should be illegal? Would you abide by your first statement in that the government should not get involved or should it be allowed to decide for the minority? The government needs to protect minority opinions. The anti-abortion movement is minority. To dismiss it without consideration is an ad populum fallacy. The majority is not always right.

Nobody is preventing pro-lifers from having their opinions. You are just as free to present your views here as I am to present mine. In the area of free speech, I abide by a very wise saying: "You must protect a freedom for the people who will abuse it, else you deny it to the majority who will not."

And that is the crux of my pro-choice stance. Some people will abuse legal abortions. But if we don't allow them to do that, we will deny the rights of victimised couples the right to an ethically acceptable abortion in every sense.

I was not appealing to ad populum. I myself adhere to so many unpopular opinions that I would never say that I must be right because the bulk of the population is behind me. "People are stupid" is my philosophy, and I instantly distrust anyone who agrees with me without being able to justify it, and I have more contempt for those that follow me blindly as those who follow whatever happens to be in trend ("oooh, we're concerned about the ozone this week."). Don't follow me. Don't follow some idiotic authority figure. Follow yourself, your conscience, and your mind. But don't rush off in ignorance, either.

My point was that minority opinions do not make law in a democratic society. You have the right to voice your opinion, but it will not become law until you can win over more than 50% of the population. You seem to be off to a rather poor start.

Colonel Sellers:

>>Some people will abuse legal abortions. But if we don't allow them to do that, we will deny the rights of victimised couples the right to an ethically acceptable abortion in every sense.<<

Abuse is subjective. From my point of view, abuse is putting your concerns ahead of the child's life. So, therefore, from my perspective that is why abortion should only be legal for cases where the pregnancy conflicts with the mother's life.

>>"People are stupid" is my philosophy, and I instantly distrust anyone who agrees with me without being able to justify it, and I have more contempt for those that follow me blindly as those who follow whatever happens to be in trend ("oooh, we're concerned about the ozone this week."). Don't follow me. Don't follow some idiotic authority figure. Follow yourself, your conscience, and your mind. But don't rush off in ignorance, either.<<

Hopefully this is not the case at this site. I must say that we seem to agree on many things.

>>it will not become law until you can win over more than 50% of the population. You seem to be off to a rather poor start.<<

Actually, for many years, my opinion was the majority. It changed, and hopefully it will change again.

nosretep:
>>>>As I recall, MG, babies don't start breathing until the doctor slaps their behind<<

Breath air at least.<<

What else would they breath? I doubt amniotic fluid spurts out of the kid's lungs when it's delivered. I could be wrong. Undoubtedly, the child's diaphram moves before this. That isn't breathing, though.

>>>>I don't know exactly when blood begins to circulate in the body of a fetus, but I imagine it's sometime around three months, give or take.<<

Realize that the child never uses it's mother's blood. This would kill it.<<

I'm well aware of that. However, the fetus isn't large enough to have it's own bloodstream for quite some time. I might have overestimated on the time when a fetus's blood starts pumping, but I was attempting to provide a rough answer to a question. Not that I feel that it is relevant to the conversation on abortion. Don't attempt to lecture me on biological processes. I've sat through quite enough lectures on them already.

-jb