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

That's just . . . wierd. Do you have proof of this? I had always assumed that rape and incest were the only violations of a woman's choice to get pregnant.

nosretep: the "curious assumption" in post #40 that I referred to is contained in the very first sentence: "I was about to disagree with Ormondroyd when she said..."
The word "she" did rather seem to imply that you'd assumed I was a woman!

Anthony: That was quite a nice bit of noise, but you could have saved yourself the trouble. I don't believe any of that claptrap about anime or souls or life beginning when it looks human. In case you hadn't noticed, I certainly don't believe in a soul, so what shape it would take is completely irrelevant to me. But now, since you've asked, I'll go on record as saying that it is my personal belief that life begins with consciousness. The physical, literal definition of life processes are occuring before then, but the fetus does not KNOW it is alive until it begins to be conscious. Until then, it exhibits no more signs of life than the sperm and egg that comprised it.

Let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground... God will make them pay for each sperm that can't be found...

I noticed that you refused to answer question number 3 on abortion. I didn't ask what the law was, I asked what you would do. Can you force your mother to give birth to that child? Can you honestly love it as you would a sibling?

As for the statistics, I simply clicked on the link for their members list, and compiled the statistics for myself. You can do the same if you want to verify them. And I notice in the answers to my ethical dilemmas on abortion, you gave exceptions, just like the members of your pro-life freethinkers. Which gives the lie to your "Never" answers to the questions you or nosretep posted asking when abortion is supportable. Really, now, if you're going to continue to contradict yourself, this argument is going to deteriorate into nonsense.

nosretep: You want to know when choice is absent at pregnancy? Here's a starter list:

- rape
- incest... although not necessarily by accident in certain parts of West Virginia.
- failure of birth control methods... remember, NO method is 100% effective save abstinence, but human impulses don't support that method particularly well
- young and naive or uneducated mother... a very common occurence in poor areas, where the young girls may be pressured to become sexually active and not understand the mechanism by which pregnancy occurs
- conception occurs while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, impairing judgement
- mother has a mental deficiency or learning disability
- mother is in a temporarily irrational state (but if you ask me, it's a terminal condition for all women ) that temporarily inhibits her decision process

Anyone want to add any others?

Sorry about that. I should have payed attention to post 3.

This post has been removed.

Based on my answers, I said:

1. I believe that abortion is never right.
2. I would never consider personally having an abortion.
3. I would never support someone else's choice to have an abortion.

In reference to questions 1 and 2

I think that Anthony answered this better than I could have in posting 98.

>>1.The ethical question is complicated, but the answer was already given centuries ago. In the past there were also women who died during a pregnancy or, overall, after having bore a child. The answer is both the mother and the child have the same right to live. Neither of the two can be sacrificed. Physicians must do anything possible in order to save the two lives. If this is not possible and only one life, mother or child, can be saved, doctors must always save that life. Moreover, any direct attack against the child's life cannot be allowed because "a good end (saving the mother's life) cannot justify a bad means (by killing the innocent child).'' neither the child's life nor the mother's life can be sacrificed.<<

The life of the mother cannot justify abortion, so abortion even in this case is not right. I do care for the mother, and the fact that abortion is not right does not mean that she is wrong through the abortion. She does not have a choice.

In reference to question 3, I have also said:

>>If I have a choice, I will always choose life. I will not choose abortion. Your examples represent situations where there is no choice. These can therefore not support a pro-abortion stance.<<

Unfortunately, when the child will die (i.e. ectopic pregnancy), the mother has no choice, therefore I would never support someone else's
CHOICE to have an abortion.

How do these answers conflict with anything that I or Anthony have said?

As to your examples as to when choice is absent at pregnancy (not abortion):

>>- rape
- incest... although not necessarily by accident in certain parts of West Virginia.
- failure of birth control methods... remember, NO method is 100% effective save abstinence, but human impulses don't support that method particularly well
- young and naive or uneducated mother... a very common occurence in poor areas, where the young girls may be pressured to become sexually active and not understand the mechanism by which pregnancy occurs
- conception occurs while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, impairing judgement
- mother has a mental deficiency or learning disability
- mother is in a temporarily irrational state (but if you ask me, it's a terminal condition for all women ) that temporarily inhibits her decision process<<

I have already mentioned rape and incest (posting 101). Anthony has addressed birth control, I agree, and I know that we disagree. For now, I will leave it at that. "Young and naive or uneducated mother" as long as she didn't choose to be uneducated, then yes it was not her choice to become pregnant (though I haven't given this much though ever). "Conception occurs while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, impairing judgement," if she choose to be under the influence to the degree that she choose to lose control over her own body, then it was her choice to become pregnant just as a drunk driver can be charged with killing someone under the influence and be guilty of a crime greater than manslaughter. This is one reason why drunkenness is dangerous. "Mother is in a temporarily irrational state that temporarily inhibits her decision process" if she brought about the conditions to her temporary irrational state, then she choose to be irrational. Therefore she is similar to drunk.

my very FAVORITE python song, btw....

wow..... has anyone else noticed (and this is not a dig, merely an observation, mind you) that this subject tends to get under anthony's skin, it irritates him, infuriates him (because we're all so stupid) and he gets upset and excited to the point that he stops making sense?
no offense, i've read both of your posts, and they're so long winded and meandering that they seem to lose all their oomph, i couldn't follow the logic of either one.

that said, anthony has swayed me, i think i'll be pro-life now.....


i don't think so.

however this discussion has reached such a point that i feel it is no longer worth the battle. nothing you can say will EVER sway me, i don't give a damn when life begins. i feel that there are certain times and situations when it is not the best choice to bring another sorry worthless welfare-bound life into it. i've stated before that i favor everyone's right to choose. if you choose not to abort, that is your choice. there is a certain liberating freedom of spirit to know that i'm not as elitist or oppressive as some people who are close minded in their own little perfect worlds. i accept all people as they are, not as i think they should be. passing judgement is not my job.

you won't believe me, anthony, but i feel very sorry for you. i hope your maker will show you more forgiveness than you would show your fellow man. after all, it is your choice of where you're going in the afterlife. how sad that you'll have to see me when you get there, since i smoke i'm sure i'll be going first. i also feel sorry that you will never experience that beautiful moment shared between two souls for the purpose of pleasure, but i take a small measure of comfort in knowing that you will not be propogating your species.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere. I also have nosretep granting exceptions. Now... here's the kicker... where do we draw the line? WHEN is the conception the product of rape, or when is it a willing woman who simply felt pressured into it? WHEN is the risk to the mother so great that the child MUST be aborted? WHEN is the mother too young or uneducated to make the right decision, and how do we measure that knowledge? And, as you admitted, "I haven't given this much thought." Perhaps you should before making decisions for other people. Or, I suppose, you can continue to NOT think about it, and allow the people involved to think about it for themselves. This is the essence of pro-choice.

I HARDLY would equate getting drunk and conceiving with getting drunk and killing a family of four. In one instance you create life, in the other you destroy it. It would be more similar to getting drunk and adopting a cat. You wake in the morning and realize you don't want the cat, as you are in fact allergic to them. Should you be forced to keep it, or should you be able to give it back?

broelan

>>because we're all so stupid<<

I can't say for anthony, but the fact that you did argue this issue means that you are not ignorant. You are not stupid unless you totally set this conversation aside. This is a very important issue that has people all across the earth taking sides.

>>however this discussion has reached such a point that i feel it is no longer worth the battle.<<

Perhaps is not worth the battle for you in this discussion, but I hope that nothing said here has swayed you into discounting either side's arguements without consideration.

>>nothing you can say will EVER sway me<<

Whereas conviction is good, open-mindedness is better. You should not reject your own position out of hand, but you need to listen. It will strengthen your arguements and (if I may say so) you yourself.

>>i've stated before that i favor everyone's right to choose.<<

You don't care when life begins, but you say all people should choose. If you accept a pro-abortion stance, you cannot simply ignore the question of when life begins because then you are saying that the most powerful people have the right to choose. I don't what to just tell you what to believe, but this is not a good position to hold.

>>i take a small measure of comfort in knowing that you will not be propogating your species.<<

Is anthony of a different species than you? How can you just say what he decides to do with the rest of his life? I ask that you refrain from judgement and help me in this regard also. This post has accomplished nothing. I am sorry if you do not return.

Colonel Sellers:

>>I also have nosretep granting exceptions.<<

The exceptions that I granted were not exceptions for abortion. They were conditions when choice is absent at pregnancy.

>>WHEN is the risk to the mother so great that the child MUST be aborted?<<

Neither of us can decide this, so it will get us nowhere, but realize that this example is a question of intent. Cases of danger to the mother's health cannot justify other cases. As to your other questions, what does the absence of choice at pregnancy have to do with the choice of abortion? I still maintain that abortion kills a child.

>>as you admitted, "I haven't given this much thought."<<

Why do you think that I am here? I need to give this thought. That is why broelan's last posting distresses me.

>>I HARDLY would equate getting drunk and conceiving with getting drunk and killing a family of four.<<

I agree, in that

>>In one instance you create life, in the other you destroy it.<<

My point is that in the case of a drunk driver, we hold him/her accountable for their actions. At the same time I infered that you believe that conception via drug impairment makes abortion OK. I apologise if I was wrong.

>>Thus It would be more similar to getting drunk and adopting a cat. You wake in the morning and realize you don't want the cat, as you are in fact allergic to them. Should you be forced to keep it, or should you be able to give it back?<<

After conception, it is impossible to give back the sperm (even if you did so you would kill the zygote). I would think it wrong to just kill the cat (although I do not equate cats at the same level as humans).

nosretep, i did not intend to blatantly offend. i can only take so many insults before i have to vent somewhere. i don't have any intention of letting the subject drop, but i am very tired of listening to anthony's 'holier than thou' attitude. i'm not leaving the discussion, i am just vowing to try to ignore some aspects of it. sadly i missed a huge point by propogating what i was trying to avoid. ya can't win em all...

the "stupid" comment probably subliminally came from anthony's first post to this thread stating that all our iq's drop 40 points when we get into these discussions. i believe at the time (though i won't be troubled to go look it up again) he was referring specifically to pro-choice advocates.

the battle that is not worth it is also anthony. you can only run into a brick wall so many times before the headache overpowers you and forces you to take a break.

>>Whereas conviction is good, open-mindedness is better.<<
i don't see myself as being close-minded. my mind is open to accept anyones personal choices. i feel it is elitist for one to think that 'choice should be removed' because one's viewpoints are 'better'. i'm not the one who needs to be open-minded here. i already am.

>>Is anthony of a different species than you?<<
you know.... i have a sneaking suspicion he just may be...... and that was my exact thought when i posted it. i was hoping someone (tho probably not you) would see the attempt at levity.

broelan:

>>i can only take so many insults before i have to vent somewhere.<<

I understand.

>>i'm not leaving the discussion<<

good.

>>i don't see myself as being close-minded.<<

I said that in the event that you were leaving the discussion. I am glad it was unwarrented.

>>see the attempt at levity.<<

levity: a humorous attitude, especially toward matters that should be treated with repect.

I guess under it all, you have a great repect for anthony

(I know what you mean, and I can have some humor. I'm just not letting it show.)

>>That's just . . . wierd. Do you have proof of this? I had always assumed that rape and incest were the only violations of a woman's choice to get pregnant.<<

All I have to say is, body fluids can be anywhere for any reason. Intercourse does not have to occur for a woman to get pregnant.

-jb

I don't see any logical reason why a pro-choice person (or a woman who has had an abortion) should have to scientifically or otherwise justify their position on whether or not the aborted fetus qualifies as a human life. Whether scientists do or do not have a consensus on this issue is beside the point, as such a consensus obviously does not create a moral imperative in the minds of all people.

For instance, some pro-choice people will agree that life begins at conception. Yet this does not change their stance on abortion, so it is a logical fallacy to assume the argument can be settled based on such an over-simplified condensation of the issues. Simply debating the existence of human life bypasses all sorts of pro-choice arguments regarding consent, economic and emotional harship, population control, health issues, women's rights, and so forth. I can only assume that people harping on the viability of human life are unready or unwilling to debate the other issues.

To address another recent post, women in a "temporarily irrational state" can't simply be equated with drunk women. One example might be a delusional woman in a psychiatric ward who has sex with a male nurse charged with her care. It might seem perfectly rational in her mind to believe that sex will result in a cure of her mental ills, plus perhaps the procreation of a litter of #2 pencils. Can we really say she has somehow consented to give birth to a human baby?

Finally, I would like to submit that both sides of this debate are committing errors by comparing abortion to any number of unrelated things. The ethical issues related to abortion really are unlike anything else. So any comparison you want to make is going to fail to address one or more issues central to the debate. Could we possibly stick to using instances where unintended pregnancy and abortion might occur? It seems we are spending lots of time debating the merits of various comparisons that might better be spent debating the issues the comparisons are meant to address.

i would imagine that the comparisons are present for the few (one) close minded people who see the issue in only black and white. these comparisons are to add color to those few, in order to help them see the issue on a broader scale.

i'll admit tho, it has failed rather fantastically, hasn't it.

Fragilis the Melodical:

>>I don't see any logical reason why a pro-choice person (or a woman who has had an abortion) should have to scientifically or otherwise justify their position on whether or not the aborted fetus qualifies as a human life.<<

If you wish, we can simply assume that the child is a human life. Under this assumption, abortion kills a human life. The moral issue that impeeds abortion is that killing a human life simply because you don't want it is wrong. You are right though, this does not impede alot of people. The reason that it is important to the issue is that many people do not believe in the humanity of the un-born. Therefore they kill their human child in ignorance. Therefore, this is an "accidental" death of a human being. I want to stop these deaths through education about the humanity of the un-born. It also has been stated that people here do not believe that the child is human, therefore it pertains to this discussion.

>>it is a logical fallacy to assume the argument can be settled based on such an over-simplified condensation of the issues.<<

The reason that pro-abortion supporters do not care about the life of the un-born is that they believe that some other issues are more important. I believe that it is a logical fallacy to say that anything is more important than life.

>>Simply debating the existence of human life bypasses all sorts of pro-choice arguments regarding consent, economic and emotional harship, population control, health issues, women's rights, and so forth. I can only assume that people harping on the viability of human life are unready or unwilling to debate the other issues.<<

I am willing and I have debated the other issues. I simply believe that eugenics does not justifify killing human life. No human life is worth the improvement of the gene pool.

>>Can we really say she has somehow consented to give birth to a human baby?<<

You took what I said out of context. I said

>>if she brought about the conditions to her temporary irrational state, then she choose to be irrational. Therefore she is similar to drunk.<<

Your example does not fit the condition. In this case she did not consent to concieve a child. There was no mention in the question I answered of abortion. Again, how does this justify abortion?

>>I believe that it is a logical fallacy to say that anything is more important than life.<<

i believe that there are more important things than life. quality of life is far more important than life itself. this does not strictly apply to the abortion issue. it applies to any situation where the quality of life is compromised.

i also believe that faith is more important than life. not specifically christian faith, but any faith. one's personal beliefs can and will protect one from the actions they take in any given situation. this doesn't even apply strictly to religious faiths either. to each his own, and his own fate.

After reading my last post, I realized that the eugenics statement came out of nowhere.

I was referring to the issue of population control. Why would a woman concent to have her child killed because of population (aside from economic and emotional hardship)? Well, China is doing it now only it is isn't her choice.

As to the other issues, you need to show me how any of them justify abortion. This is where I "see things as black and white." I do not believe that any of them do. Also, simply disregarding the existence of human life bypasses all sorts of anti-abortion arguments.

>>i also believe that faith is more important than life. not specifically christian faith, but any faith. one's personal beliefs can and will protect one from the actions they take in any given situation. this doesn't even apply strictly to religious faiths either. to each his own, and his own fate.<<

So, basically I can tell you what to do and even force you to do it and I am right in doing so because I believe I am. At the same time, I am wrong somehow. This makes absolutely no sence. I need you to explain this for me.

"...I can tell you what to do and even force you to do it and I am right in doing so because I believe I am..."
No! Of course not!
But isn't that precisely what the "pro-life" movement seeks to do to women?

okay, i can see where my last post was written in a way to invite multiple interpretations. what i was actually trying to say was this:
everyone lives their lives according to a personal set of rules and standards. these rules and standards stem from one's beliefs. if you believe in a god, then you live your life by your faith in that god. you believe that your actions will ultimately be forgiven or punished by that god. if you belive there is no god, then you live your life by your own morals, and you alone will be accountable for your actions, they will not be judged by a higher authority. if your faith lies in logic, then your actions will be dictated, and defended by logic.

my belief is that this faith is more important than the life itself. if you have no faith in anything, if you live without direction and without purpose, if there is no urge that drives you, then what is your life worth. this would be the mindset of someone in the process of committing suicide. not saying that in that case these thoughts are valid, but they are real enough to the person going through them.