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

Pattern-chaser

I was unclear. You said that >>The decision to kill a living being should never be taken lightly.<< At the same time, you say >>Abortion is surely less wrong...<< I was wondering how you can see abortion as wrong and then say >>Theirs [the parent's] is the right *and* the responsibility.<<

I agree that abortion is ultimately the responsibility of the mother just as the child is ultimately the responsibility of the mother, but it is not her right because it is (you have said some) wrong.

I agree in large part with that quotation from posting 48. I do not agree that abortion is the right of the parents or the mother.

>>They, not you, will answer to the Lord on the Last Day (or substitute a respectful reference to your chosen faith).<<

Are you saying that I will not have to answer to the Lord on the Last Day? In respect to someone's choice, I will not answer to the Lord. In respect to what I have done to influence someone's choice, I will answer to the Lord. If someone says that they will commit suicide and I say fine, I will be accountable. If someone says that they will go out and kill someone and I say fine, I will be accountable. From my point of view, this is exactly what someone who has an abortion is saying.

Fragilis the Melodical:

I believe that safety is a side-issue because what really matters is: is the unborn child alive? If it is, I don't feel that safety matters. I believe that under these circumstances, the killing of children sould only be allowed when it endangers the life of the mother. When the mother has an illegal abortion, she is endangering her life, the child is not.

broelan:

>>it's none of your business.<<

So if this is the true reason why at least one person I know has had an abortion, what was your argument when you said:

>>i would also imagine that at least one person you know has had an abortion and you would never suspect. do you know why this is? because if someone is confident in her decision that they are doing the right thing, it doesn't cause woe and emotional scarring that would haunt the rest of her life. being forced (by law or any other means) to do something you feel is wrong, that you don't want to do, and that you will live with for the rest of your life, THAT causes emotional scarring. THAT causes depression.<<

"You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it." - Thomas Paine.

The pro-life front violates Paine's good wisdom here, because they are trying to preclude themselves the right of changing their minds. Worse yet, they are trying to preclude the rights of everyone else. When nosretep tells me that he would raise a child he had no choice in conceiving, well, I don't really believe him. I think that when the situation came down to it, he'd be relieved that the woman wanted an abortion. There are stories of young women who impregnate themselves, for whatever reason (often as a last-ditch effort to save a relationship that is ending, hoping things will change when she carries his child), by inserting the contents of the man's used condom afterwards. If this ever happened to me, I would DEMAND an abortion. How DARE she do that sort of thing to me? How dare she commit me to fatherhood against my will?

This post has been removed.

I have just finished reading all of this conversation, (it took me some time!). I did not intend to enter this discussion, but have been so affected by it that I feel I must. I do not have any informative facts or statistics to add to this discussion, only feelings and personal opinions. I hope that nobody disputes my right to have an opinion, just as I hope that nobody disputes my right to have a say in what happens in my life and to my body.
Abortion is an issue that will never be agreed upon by everybody, as it IS an emotional issue (affecting peoples emotions, whatever their beliefs or experiences). People will feel and act differently according to their experiences, beliefs, knowledge and understanding.
Somebody recently said to me: "You are entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong" This is a completely infuriating statement, of course, and after this person recovered conciousness, I asked him why, if he was acknowledging my right to have an opinion, he was not also acknowledging my right to BE right, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. I may have been wrong from HIS point of view, but right from my own.

nosretep, the second link you posted doesn't work. The first one does. I followed it, read the interview, and ended up feeling very sorry for the unfortunate "Eric". His tragedy can be summed up in seven of his own words: "I was brought up in the Church".

As a result of that, guilt has ruined his life; and the fact that he's gay has made that worse, because the twisted values he's been indoctrinated with have made him hate his own sexuality. Poor guy.

I then began to have a look around the rest of the site, but I can understand why you found it difficult to finish reading it. I soon gave up! Blatantly partisan propaganda gets so dull so soon ...

I agree that it's better to discuss things without personal insults. So will you please stop insulting our intelligence with links to such shamelessly biased sources?

threeoftwo:

>>if he was acknowledging my right to have an opinion, he was not also acknowledging my right to BE right, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. I may have been wrong from HIS point of view, but right from my own.<<

Note: I am not talking about abortion in the following.
Whereas you are entitled to your opinion, that opinion can be wrong. For example, ef you believe that you will live forever, you are wrong. Why do you have a right to be right if you are wrong?

Ormondroyd:

>>nosretep, the second link you posted doesn't work.<<

That's because of the extra periods in the address. You can copy and paste it and it should work.

>>His tragedy can be summed up in seven of his own words: "I was brought up in the Church".<<

Can you say that the events that he went through and the things that he saw did not contribute at all to his feelings of remorse? Why do you hate the Church to such a degree that you relate all of society's evils to it? You are using a fallacy of reason called Ad Hominem. You are attacking the source of the arguments instead of attacking the issues that it raises. You must disprove the facts. Can you refute the following statements:

>>The maximum [number of abortions] I&#8217;ve ever seen get done in a day is probably 50-60 women. Usually, that takes two abortionists, but I have seen doctors kick out 40-50 patients by themselves. First trimester cases &#8211; if you have a doctor who&#8217;s been doing it for a while and he knows what he&#8217;s doing &#8211; you can push through 6-7 an hour. And that goes back to the whole issue too of how little regulation there is. Even within PA, which prides itself on being the bastion for restrictive abortion laws, there really are no regulations. There&#8217;s nobody to monitor these facilities. There&#8217;s nobody who tracks the money that comes from the birth control companies that flood through the clinics &#8211; the paybacks. There&#8217;s nobody who tracks the insurance companies that give incentives to physicians for performing abortions, because insurance companies would rather pay for abortions than pay for a full labor and delivery.<<

>>If you&#8217;re a participating member of an insurance company, they will give you incentives to perform an abortion. First trimester abortions are $250, and insurance companies such as&#8230;I&#8217;ve seen them pay over $2,000 for those abortions, because they would rather pay $2,000-$2,500 for a first trimester case than pay $7,000-$8,000 for prenatal, labor and delivery.<<

And then one of the most disturbing:

>>Brad: Let me ask you about your attitude and contact with the women.

Eric: I would make their appointments. I would sit and talk to them in the waiting room. I would go into the procedure rooms with them. When I first got started, I was very truly concerned about the women who were having abortions, but, as in most cases, there are two reasons why people get involved in the abortion industry. The first is money. The second is because they really feel that it&#8217;s helping women. But even those people who get involved because they think it&#8217;s helping women &#8211; at some point in time convert to the fact that it&#8217;s all about money. So you stop looking at women after a certain point in time as being people that you&#8217;re helping and you just start looking at them as dollar bills.<<

>>Blatantly partisan propaganda gets so dull so soon ...<<

It may make it possible for you to shrug off the claims of Eric by calling it partisan propaganda, but can you show me any opposing facts from any pro abortion rights advocate site? If you cannot, could it be that this is not propaganda? From my searches, this seems to be a common article among anti-abortion sites, shouldn't there be corresponding refutation out there? I couldn't find it. I may have been looking in the wrong place though.

>>will you please stop insulting our intelligence with links to such shamelessly biased sources?<<

When else have I linked to an anti-abortion site without linking to a corresponding pro abortion rights advocate site? The only other one that I think I posted was a quotation from Anthony. In this post, I was attempting to show that the abortion industry is not the "lover of women's abortion rights" like many people claim. I was also attempting to provide information on the experiences of someone who has seen the abortion industry first-hand. I would be very biased to just hear one side. I believe that it would also be very close-minded to say that Eric Harrah felt guilt solely because of his involvement in the Church.

nosretep:
I obviously did not explain my self fully.
In some circumstances, a person's opinion can be wrong, of course, e.g, "in my opinion, I weigh twelve stone". This can be proved wrong by weighing me. However, in some circumstances, an opinion cannot be proved or disproved conclusively, e.g, "The Manic Street Preachers are the best band in the world". We can offer many facts and arguements as to WHY The Manics are or are not the best band in the world, (facts which may differ according to where we get them from), however, we cannot prove or disprove otherwise. It is a matter of opinion, and either opinion can be right, according to each persons point of view. Sometimes we simply have to accept that there IS no definitive right or wrong, only perspective and opinion. If a person is open minded enough, they can see that something can be both right, and wrong.
In my previous posting, I was timidly offering the opinion that this debate could be one such issue. But I could be wrong...

nosretep, the reason your above link doesn't work is because you've put commas where dots should be.

no, i didn't try any of the links, this was just an observation. i don't buy into these things for a number of reasons. they ARE propoganda. and if you've seen the same article on several sites, that alone would back me up, aside from the fact that they must not have a wealth of material to choose from.

don't feel bad, abortion is not the only issue to ever be attacked by propoganda. any political issue invites it. it's one of the reasons i absolutely HATE election season. i have a colleague of mine who regularly sends me anti-democratic propoganda. it's all the same. they're right and we're stupid. (i'm not saying that this was your intended message, i wasn't even thinking it. but all that propoganda is the same because it all caries the same message, regardless of the subject matter.)

i also thought i'd mention that as my beliefs are largely based on personal experience and knowledge, i do not make a habit of cruising the internet in search of reasons to be right about something. i use the internet to search for information i don't know, or products i'd like to buy, or favorite sites like authors' sites, artists' sites, and of course h2g2. so i apologize for not being able to direct you to a pro choice site. it's not something i feel i need to know more about. but i would imagine that there aren't as many as there are pro-life sites. it would seem to me that most pro-choicers spend their time defending their rights, instead of publishing propoganda (probably a republican invention, btw) to tell pro-lifers how evil they are.

regardless of whether or not you, or any other pro-lifer, are religious, you need to recognize that the pro-life movement has been started and fueled by the religious right. the religious right has had a long and sordid history of promoting exaggerations and lies to make their points. i am not saying that everything they say is untrue, but it would be rather exhausting to pick through their propoganda for the bits and pieces that are relevant. again, some of what they say is true, but they can't have a vast treasure chest of 'evil' evidence against us or they wouldn't have to re-hash the same six stories thousands of times changing the names for different publications. their biggest argument, and indeed the only valid one is their beliefs, one of which is that we are all going to burn in hell regardless of our beliefs. but you can't enact legislation based on beliefs, so they have to pick and dig for threads to pull.

nosretep

>>So if this is the true reason why at least one person I know has had an abortion, what was your argument...<<

apparently you missed the part (in the same post, btw) where i also said that women tend to share their experiences with people they share something in common with. outside of the fact that their personal business is none of your business, if they are aware of your feelings on the issue, then in that respect you have nothing in common. why should they strain the relationship with something that will cause you emotional distress?

aside from that, this isn't relevant to anything being discussed, but i was just curious....

would you date a woman that you knew had an abortion? what if you found out during the relationship? would you marry someone who has had one? you may already be married, that isn't what i want to know. just picture yourself single and faced with this situation. i do have a reason for asking.

all, please forgive me, i hate posting to the same conversation three times in a row, but i thought you all might find this interesting. nosretep, i have just posted this to the other conversation, so sorry for you having to read it twice.

my mother works in the elementary school that i attended as a child. tonight, as we were taking my son to his school (not the same one) for his first christmas program, my mother mentioned to me that one of the students at her school attempted suicide yesterday. fortunately he was unsuccessful, but do you think maybe he wishes he hadn't been born? he is in fourth grade. some people just shouldn't bring children into this world. if he had succeeded, it would have been a much greater tragedy than any abortion ever will be.

broelan:

>>they ARE propoganda. and if you've seen the same article on several sites, that alone would back me up, aside from the fact that they must not have a wealth of material to choose from.<<

The reason that the same article is on several sites is because this is a very well known man in the anti-abortion community. If you did go to the site, or just about any other, you will see that it is not in fact from a lack of information. This site is propaganda in that it spreads information for the purpose of helping the anti-abortion cause. In like manner, everything said regarding this issue in this forum by someone who wants to further their beliefs uses some form of propaganda. I am using propaganda right now. The term has recieved a very negative connotation today because of political parties. The fact that it is propaganda does not give you the right to just dismiss it. Yes it will tend to be biased. That is why it is important to look at cooresponding pro abortion rights activist sites.

>>i do not make a habit of cruising the internet in search of reasons to be right about something.<<

I feel the need to know what I believe. To not do so would be to believe in ignorance.

>>but i would imagine that there aren't as many as there are pro-life sites.<<

I have no idea, and I don't have the time to count them all. There are thousands of both sides.

>>it would seem to me that most pro-choicers spend their time defending their rights, instead of publishing propoganda (probably a republican invention, btw) to tell pro-lifers how evil they are.<<

What information given by any pro abortion rights activist in relation to abortion is not intended to further their cause?

>>the religious right has had a long and sordid history of promoting exaggerations and lies to make their points.<<

To make this statement without mentioning the other side is not logical (not to mention that I disagree).

>>and indeed the only valid one is their beliefs, one of which is that we are all going to burn in hell regardless of our beliefs. but you can't enact legislation based on beliefs, so they have to pick and dig for threads to pull.<<

Will you deny that the other side does the same? What do you mean by "regardless of our beliefs?"

This post has been removed.

>>What do you mean by "regardless of our beliefs?"<<

the following is a generalization. it is not intended to include EVERYONE in the demographic sited. it is in reference to a majority portion of the geographic location involved:

the religious right is primarily founded (in america) in the bible belt. the bible belt covers a majority of the southern states. the major religion in the southern states is one form or another of baptists. baptists, as a religion, believe that if you are not baptist, regardless of whether or not you are otherwise christian, if you do not believe exactly the same as them and claim yourself to be baptist, you will go to hell. and so will all those other non-christians. needless to say, i am not a baptist (but i have known quite a few).

>>The fact that it is propaganda does not give you the right to just dismiss it.<<

fortunately, i do still retain that right. it hasn't been taken from me yet.

>>I feel the need to know what I believe. To not do so would be to believe in ignorance.<<

how can you not know what you believe? no one else knows what you believe, only you. i do not hold my beliefs in ignorance. my beliefs (as i've stated many times before) are based in experience and personal knowledge. in short, I'VE BEEN THERE. if i believe the sky is blue, and i go outside and look up and the sky is indeed blue, do i still need to log online and consult a scientific website to concur with my belief that the sky is blue for it to be valid? and do not give me another tired response of "are you comparing abortion to the sky being blue!?" that is not the argument i am making, and you know it.

broelan:

I did not see posting 150 when I posted 151.

>>do you think maybe he wishes he hadn't been born?<<

Can you now say that you do not use propaganda? You are using the misery of a child to further your cause. It is a tragedy that a child wants to commit suicide. It is a tragedy that some children are not wanted. I cannot guess into the circumstances of this child. You seem to just assume that he wants to commit suicide because he is not wanted. If the child attempted to commit suicide because his parents did not want him, I say that the fault lies with the parents. Would killing the child have changed this fault? You will say that I am wanting the child to live in misery all of its life. This is not true. I want the parents to care for and want their children. If for whatever reason the parents cannot, there is the choice of adoption. A parent has the reponsibility for their children. It may sound cold, but I believe that this means that a parent must care for the child. I do not see killing the child as caring for it. I will respond to the next postings in a while.

Ormondroyd:

>>in which there was an attempt to deny that the world is over-populated<<

I searched the site and I didn't find anything about over-population. Where exactly in the site did it say so? The link you gave did not say that the world is over-populated. I am sorry if you have already said where it did, but could you post that again? When Anthony made the argument in posting 55 that the world is not over-populated, I never saw any refutation. You need to give me more than a number and a growth rate to prove your point. In any case, this is still an Ad Hominem. Can you refute the points that I addressed?

broelan:

I am not baptist. In fact, I will never tell anyone that they will go to hell. That is not mine to judge.

>>fortunately, i do still retain that right. it hasn't been taken from me yet.<<

I am sorry, I misunderstood what you said. I assume that you agree that to hold on to one side of this issue without knowledge is wrong. You have shown that you have knowledge, that is good. I do not believe that anyone has the right to debate this issue in ignorance. That is what I meant, sorry.

The page where the site says the world is not over-populated can be reached by going to the "I am pro-choice" option in the index. There's then a link about over-population towards the bottom of that page. Sorry I can't post a link - the URL is too long to fit in the address bar of my computer screen.
No, I can't refute the points you addressed, but you can't prove them either. I don't believe what I read on sites like that.
Finally, if stats showing that the world's population has more than doubled in the past 50 years don't strike you as worrying, then I don't know what WOULD concern you.
Apart from abortion, of course.

>>When Anthony made the argument in posting 55 that the world is not over-populated, I never saw any refutation.<<

In the UK recently, a David Attenborough TV series has been investigating the thousands of species already extinct as a result of their proximity to humans. The rate of extinction is accelerating.

It is now almost universally accepted that there is such a thing as global warming, and that our climate has already been significantly affected by it.

This planet is over-run by humans.

Abortion pales into insignificance when you consider how 99 out of every 100 humans might be disposed of...

Pattern-chaser

nosretep said "I was wondering how you can see abortion as wrong and then say >>Theirs [the parent's] is the right *and* the responsibility.<<"

Taking a life should never be done lightly. When a cow dies to feed me, there is a clear sense in which it is wrong. All life is sacred. (All IMO, of course.) These decisions are only meaningful when seen in relative terms. It was the cow or me.

Sometimes our lives require that we do things that are (in some sense at least) wrong. Didn't you know?

Pattern-chaser

nosretep

>>You are using the misery of a child to further your cause<<

i am stating a fact that i felt was relevant to the conversation at hand. one of the arguments that has been made is the childs right to choose (which doesn't exist, see earlier posts, or was that in the other thread?). i think it's a tragedy even tho it wasn't successful. this isn't the kind of stuff that is reported in the news, so how could a pro-lifer have any idea that some kids feel they have it that bad? it would be propoganda if a huge (or even rather insignifigant) pro-choice organization grabbed onto this event and sensationalized it and promoted it nation-wide for their cause. i am merely stating a fact that is relevant to our conversation.


.
>>You seem to just assume that he wants to commit suicide because he is not wanted.<<

that was not my assumption at all. it is my assumption that this child was miserable beyond his ability to compensate for. that, btw, is also a tragedy.

>>I want the parents to care for and want their children.<<

many parents do care for and want their children. i would be devastated if anything happened to my child. my parents would be devastated if anything happened to me. but unfortunately not everyone can say this. the fact of the matter is there ARE unwanted children. there always will be.

>>If for whatever reason the parents cannot, there is the choice of adoption.<<

adoption is a choice for some. but have you paid any attention to the state of orphanages and foster homes at all? there are thousands of unwanted children that no one wants to adopt. granted there are thousands of people who would like to adopt but can't, or don't like the selection from which to choose. pre-arranged adoptions don't always work either, someone always has the opportunity to change their mind halfway through. i also personally know of a family that conceived one of their own children. he was one of thirteen. the other twelve were adopted. all from a different foreign country. from a whole-hearted desire to want to help the children of the world, their situation became such that one of their adopted children walked on to a busy freeway to commit suicide, and several years later the parents eventually divorced. is that a good environment for children? until adoption conditions and policies are changed in this country, adoption is a choice, but it isn't necessarily always the best one. and from personal experience, i can honestly say that i could NOT give any child up for adoption.

>>It may sound cold, but I believe that this means that a parent must care for the child. <<

parents should care for their children. this is enforced by law. if you are negligent or abusive of your children, the state can take your children away and place them in the system mentioned above. this is a last resort because the state feels that the best thing for a child is his or her own parent. unfortunately, in some cases, the state is to late to prevent irreversable damage. the other sentence by this law is actual jail or prison time for criminal negligence. these deterrents do not change the fact that negligence and abuse continue to exist.

yes, parents should be responsible for their children. but the fact will remain that not all of them will be. making something illegal does not make it go away.

nosretep, i also didn't mean to imply that the mother of the child above should have had an abortion. that is not my decision to make. my point in that case was simply that while 98% of all people in the world will have sex at some point in their lives, many of them for much of their lives, that doesn't mean that everyone *should* parent a child. some people should just never have that privelege.