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

This post has been removed.

Ormondroyd:

I looked at that portion of the site, and it seemed well documented. I was asking though for the portion of the United Nations website discussing overpopulation, not population statistics.

>>I don't believe what I read on sites like that.<<

Ultimately it is your choice to believe what you want, thank you for reading what they said. I will attempt to avoid biased sources in the future (and if I ever cite another source this attempt will fail).

>>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.<<

I just try to look at the situation logically. During the gas crises of the 80's in the United States, most people kept their tanks half full at all times. This made the situation look much worse than it already was. I think that that is similar to the situation now. If you look at the birth rate over the past some-odd years sence it has been recorded, it has remained "relatively" constant if not decreased. I therefore think that the growth rates have been a combination of medicine and food production so that people now live longer. That is why all developed nations are having such a problem caring for the elderly now when it was never that big of a "problem." This is another reason why euthanasia is coming to the fore (but this is another topic).

Pattern-chaser:

>>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.<<

I personally believe that global warming is a cyclical process. This planet has periods of hot and periods of cold. How long this process takes, I don't know. There is global warming. I do not know how much it is a result of humans. I can say though that humans have killed a large number of species.

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

I take the last part as levity. If abortion pales in compairison to population growth (I think that this is your reference) then what good does it do against it?

>>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.<<

First, I profess ignorance - what is IMO?

Second, I think that I am beginning to understand your beliefs. I do believe that all life is precious. If this were a utopia I suppose that we could coexist with all animals and eat fruit. According to the Christian religion, that is what the world was like before sin (but this really is not the right forum for such a discussion, can you direct me to a more appropriate one if it exists?).

How can a mother say it was the child or me when the life of the child does not directly conflict with the life of the mother?

broelan:

>>i am stating a fact that i felt was relevant to the conversation at hand.<<

You are right. It is relevant to this conversation. Sorry that I attacked you. You have a wealth of personal experience that would be lost if I were to discourage you from sharing (though I doubt that such an attempt would do any good ).

>>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?<<

I actually know from personal experience. It is difficult to avoid suicide in today's society. I grew up in a very rich town where often both parents worked to keep a multi-million dollar house. This city is now known almost nation wide (that may be an exaggeration) for drug abuse.

>>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.<<

You are right. I was just mad at the term propaganda being thrown around.

>>but unfortunately not everyone can say this. the fact of the matter is there ARE unwanted children. there always will be.<<

Perhaps this is indeed the heart of the tragedy.

Fragilis:

Hum... You seem to be right. I will try to stick to facts from now on. I am guilty of not investigating a source that I used, sorry.

IMO - in my opinion

This post has been removed.

>>During the gas crises of the 80's in the United States, most people kept their tanks half full at all times. This made the situation look much worse than it already was.<<

i know this is entirely irrelevant, but i was but a babe in the 80's, can you tell me how this is true? maybe post it to my page, so we don't get distracted here.

i do not endorse abortion as a method of population control. i don't believe that is the intent of anyone here, either. it would take a really twisted mind to consider giving up a child simply because there are too many other people in the world. but you have to realize that abortion does indirectly affect population. if you stop abortion, it will indeed have an effect on the population. i can't say for your geographic location, but where i am, 20 years ago my city was primarily farms and fields with a smallish central city and a few outlying neighborhoods. at some point during the 80's, st. charles, missouri (where i am) was the fastest growing community in the entire united states. not just in the top ten, but the fastest in the nation. i have seen parks grow smaller, fields and woods disappear, farmers sell out to developers, eminent domain steal land from people. all in the name of creating apartment complexes, condominiums, homes in the 200,000 to 500,000 range, and of course amenities for all these people. the city i live in now isn't even recognizable from the city i moved to 25 years ago. and it continues to grow and spread at an alarming rate even today. i don't believe for a second that abortion will stop this, or even slow it down (seeing how abortion was legal throughout it's growth) but stopping abortion would have an impact, not just here, but everywhere.

>>(but this really is not the right forum for such a discussion, can you direct me to a more appropriate one if it exists?).<<

just last week there was a topic on the front page titled "does god exist" or something along those lines. i haven't checked it out, so i can't give you a link, but i'm sure you can still find it. try entering "god" in the search box.

The proper place for discussing the nature of God is:

What is God?
http://www.h2g2.com/A472033

You might also like to take a look at the homepage of the Christians On h2g2 group: http://www.h2g2.com/A202519 .

The conversation seems to have gone elsewhere, so let me try to summerize. This has been said, I am trying to be concise. In issues like this, we need to find the stasis (the central turning point) of the argument. I believe that the following is your stasis.

Cases of rape, incest, social status, failed birth control and everything else really don't matter because it is the woman's choice and we cannot interfere with a woman's choice. Therefore the stasis from your argument is: can you deny a woman's choice?

Obviously if this is true, I am wrong. I have a different stasis. The child is alive. If the child is a human being, then giving a pregnant woman the choice over her body also gives her the power over her child's body. I believe that this is wrong. The stasis from my argument is: is the child a human being?

I'm sorry. But I feel that any attempt to reduce my opinion into a simplistic 'stasis' is going to fail.

Abortion is a complicated issue, and I treat it as such. If you see the matter as having a single crux, that's fine. I respect your opinion. But please don't ask me to reduce my argument so it will match yours in simplicity. If you keeping pushing in that direction, I will end up feeling slighted. And I'm sure that's not your intention.

In my opinion, the social issue of abortion involves a careful balancing act between the needs of the potential parents, the intrinsic value of the potential child, and the needs of society to keep itself healthy in the broadest of terms. There are also religious and moral opinions to take into account, population pressures to understand, and scientific, medical, and financial realities to consider. There is no 'stasis' left in my mind when so many variables are involved.

The stasis refers to the simple "pro-choice" stance (I think that "pro-choice" fits better here than "pro abortion rights activist" because I am directly refering to stasis of the argument of the woman's choice over her pregnancy). I do not think that I am reducing the pro-choice opinion by saying that it hinges on the choice of a woman to have an abortion. The arguments presented here do not convey anything above that. If your opinion is reduced by what I said, that means that you will deny the woman the right to have an abortion because of the needs of the potential parents, the intrinsic value of the potential child, and the needs of society to keep itself healthy in the broadest of terms. The religious and moral opinions, population pressures, and the scientific, medical, and financial realities really do not matter. It comes down to "it is a woman's choice." I am not talking about whether a woman should have an abortion. I am talking about should a woman have the legal ability to have an abortion. Thus the variables you and everyone else has mentioned under my logic are meaningless from both sides of the issue. Correct me if I am wrong, and hit me if I don't listen.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

broelan:

>>i am pro-choice because i can't make that decision for someone else.<<

Isn't this the foundation and the basis for all of your arguments? That sounds really concrete. The pro-choice side basically says that you can't choose for someone else, right? This appears black and white to me. It is not black and white as to who should have an abortion. I was saying that it is black and white as to the argument. We are not arguing whether someone should have an abortion, we are arguing whether someone should legally have the legal right to an abortion when her life is not in danger. To give a concrete yes or no to this question makes the debate black and white. I think that everything is black and white. The issue can be clouded as to appear vague.

>>i am pro-choice because there are too many factors involved for me to be able to say "no one can ever have an abortion" or "everyone should have an abortion".<<

This reinforces your first statement. You are bringing out the true issue for someone who says that they are pro-choice - you can't say if someone should have an abortion.

>>i am pro-choice because i believe individuals should have final say over the course thier life takes.<<

This is not a stance that looks at shades of grey. A stance that takes grey in regards to a woman's choice would say that sometimes you can force a woman to choose one way, sometimes you can't. In other aspects that too is black and white.

*every day 3 children die of abuse or neglect

Following the reasoning of abortion, should they be killed to avoid further mental trauma?

*today there are an estimated 1.35 million children that are homeless.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just kill them and reduce the surplus population? I am not saying that you advocate killing born children. But these argument are invalid because they are not reasons to kill a child after it is born. The difference is birth. If poverty supports abortion...Poverty only increases after birth so then it should be more acceptable to kill later after birth...poverty also supports infanticide.

>>i have shared my source.<<

thank you

nosretep is now attempting to reverse the arguments, so I will preempt him:

"The pro-choice side basically says that you can't choose for someone else, right? This appears black and white to me." - No, this is not black and white. This is acknowledging that there are shades of grey, and that people who aren't involved in the situation are unequipped to make that moral decision, since they don't have all of the information.

"It is not black and white as to who should have an abortion." - Good. I'm glad we agree.

"I think that everything is black and white." - Huh? Now you're contradicting yourself.

I've already gotten you to admit that abortion isn't black and white. I've already gotten you to admit that there are times when murder is not only justified but necessary, and I've gotten you to admit that, in spite of the biblical injunction "Thous shalt not kill", even you would kill in certain situations. All that remains is for you to put the two situations together. Your failure to do so only shows that you are not addressing this topic with anything resembling critical reason, or else you would have quit long since. And i refuse to address those points you made about the statistics, as they are dogmatic and offensive.

Colonel Sellers:

>>"The pro-choice side basically says that you can't choose for someone else, right? This appears black and white to me." - No, this is not black and white. This is acknowledging that there are shades of grey, and that people who aren't involved in the situation are unequipped to make that moral decision, since they don't have all of the information.<<

Is it not black and white to say that you CANNOT choose for someone else? There are no exceptions to that in any arguments for abortion rights that I have seen so far.

>>"It is not black and white as to who should have an abortion." - Good. I'm glad we agree.<<

You are taking what I said out of context. Right after I said this, I said >>I was saying that it is black and white as to the argument.<< The pro-choice stance takes the issues of rape, etc. and combines them into the woman's choice. This is the issue from the pro-choice perspective. This is black and white from the pro-choice perspective. It is not black and white as to who should have an abortion because according to pro abortion rights activists it is none of your business.

>>Now you're contradicting yourself.<<

Right after that I said >>The issue can be clouded as to appear vague.<< By focusing of the various cases, the issue of a woman's choice gets clouded so that it becomes grey.


>>I've already gotten you to admit that abortion isn't black and white.<<

The exceptions that I granted were not exceptions for abortion. They were conditions when choice is absent at pregnancy. (posting 109)

>>I've already gotten you to admit that there are times when murder is not only justified but necessary, and I've gotten you to admit that, in spite of the biblical injunction "Thous shalt not kill", even you would kill in certain situations.<<

I personally do not believe that killing in self-defence is wrong, perhaps it is. Note that this is not murder in the US.

>>All that remains is for you to put the two situations together.<<

I did not agree to either the way you stated them here, so I can't reasonably do so.

>>And i refuse to address those points you made about the statistics, as they are dogmatic and offensive.<<

That's how I feel about abortion.

nosretep

you are correct in saying that my arguments are black and white - when taken independently. however, my arguments are not independent, they are intermixed. abortion is a complex issue. there is no *one* driving force behind it. it's surrounded by a million different opinions that come from a million more different people with again another million different emotions. it is an issue entrenched in law, religion, and emotion. it affects moral issues, legal issues, economic issues, environmental issues, and social issues. how you can say that such a complex issue is merely black and white, i do not know. your beliefs on the matter may be clear to you, but they are rather elitist on the whole. the rest of us recognize the fact that there will never be one true answer for this issue. there will always be exceptions to the rule, special circumstances, and people who feel they are above the law.

if you really do see everything in black and white, then i truly pity you. there are so many subtle differences to each and every situation we will ever face, so many minute details that would alter any experience, so many shades of gray that make each day different from the next. very few things in life are absolute. i feel sorry for you that you are missing the beauty of the gift you have received.

as for the statistics that i sited, may i remind you that in a few different posts i have stated that i do not support abortion as a means of population control. it wouldn't work anyway, considering the fact that these statistics have been noted in a society where abortion has been legal for more than twenty years. but outlawing abortion will complicate these problems. would you feel better knowing that five children a day die from abuse and neglect?

look at it on this parallel: (disclaimer - i am not saying that these situations are identical, but they do share certain elements. this is not meant to spark a circle debate, it is merely a similar situation in a different context.) hunting for sport is legal. every year thousands of hunters go out in search of a prize game. they kill animals, stuff them and hang them on the walls. if they haven't killed them in a manner that prevents this, they sometimes eat parts of what they kill. but the primary drive behind hunting is the sport of it. i personally find this barbaric. hunting does, however, serve a necessary evil: it controls the animal population. without hunters we would have just too many of certain species of animal. it is a grisly and distasteful fact, but a fact nonetheless.

likewise (not identical, see disclaimer above) abortion is legal. every year thousands of women have abortions for personal private reasons, known only to the women that have to make these decisions. they may not be able to support or provide for a child. they may themselves be victim of debilitating disease and fearful of the term. they may simply not want children. or their lives may be in danger. for whatever their personal reasons for doing so, women have abortions. you personally find this barbaric. abortion does, however, serve a necessary evil: it controls the population, keeping poverty and destitution at barely manageable (truly too high) levels. it is a grisly and distasteful fact, but a fact nonetheless.

(disclaimer back-up: again, i am not intending to say that abortion and hunting are similar issues, that should be compared to one another. i am simply attempting to draw a line from one subject that you have blocked so far out of your realm of possibility to see the grays of the issue, to another completely different issue that you are probably familiar with that shares one small common like but not identical factor. outside of this one slight similarity, hunting is not at all anything like abortion on any level, and abortion is not at all anything like hunting on any level. are you getting my point or do i need to drag this on?)

Let me try to clarify, norestep, why I think abortion is not a black-and-white issue.

As I stated in my last post, I feel there are numerous variables that must be considered when it comes to unwanted pregnancies. Again, these range from moral concerns to medical ones, from financial questions to ethical questions. And the variables are different for almost every pregnancy. You understand my argument, but you believe it still boils down to an assumption on my part that a choice should always be available to the woman. I hope I'm fairly presenting your conclusion.

So let me fill in the blanks. I believe that *somebody* needs to review each unwanted pregnancy and decide which option should be taken (abortion, adoption, keeping the child). I also feel that, in most cases, the potential parents are the best people to do this. A pre-written law will tend to result in a one-size-fits-all decision making process that leads to terrible heartache in some select cases. Even a doctor or judge given license to make independent "rulings" might make a terrible decision sometimes.

So I feel the family should make the choice -- in most cases. The family will take the decision the most seriously and give it the most thought, since it is the family that must live with the longterm consequences. Will mistakes be made? Sure. We see the sad consequences when we look at depressed women who regret having had an abortion, teens who have thrown their babies into dumpsters, and children who wish they had never been born. But I feel it is better in the long term to let people live with their own actions, rather than forcing them to live with other people's decisions.

But yes, there are gray areas. I feel potential fathers should be included in the process. Other people disagree, and say the woman alone should decide. And even I will admit that the father's decision shouldn't matter if the child was begotten through rape or incest. And a dead-beat dad's opinions shouldn't count if he has made it clear he has no intention of helping out no matter what happens.

And what if the mother really is unable to decide? She's in a coma. She is temporarily unconscious due to a medical trauma like a car accident. Perhaps her IQ is so low that she is incapable of understanding she is pregnant, much less is she able to care for a baby. Maybe she has a mental illness like schizophrenia which causes her to believe her baby is something much more sinister than it is -- like a demon or monster. Maybe with medication or time, she might choose more rationally. But maybe there isn't the time. Again, there are many factors we don't like to consider.

Those cases are rare, perhaps, but they exist. So the "right" to determine whether you should have an abortion can't really be completely universal. There are practical limits to my pro-choice stance. Can you understand my point now?

broelan:

>>the rest of us recognize the fact that there will never be one true answer for this issue.<<

The answer has been stated quite clearly to me that it is a woman's choice. Is that not an answer?

>>there will always be exceptions to the rule, special circumstances, and people who feel they are above the law.<<

What rule? That it is a woman's choice? I am not saying that this is a black and white issue as to who should have an abortion. It is from my perspective. From yours, however, it seems clear to me that it is black and white in that it is a woman's choice. It is the exceptions that make it colored in your opinion. These same exeptions have been used repeatedly to show me that it is a woman's choice.

>>if you really do see everything in black and white, then i truly pity you. there are so many subtle differences to each and every situation we will ever face, so many minute details that would alter any experience, so many shades of gray that make each day different from the next. very few things in life are absolute. i feel sorry for you that you are missing the beauty of the gift you have received.<<

You pity me for clairity in seeing that the subtle differences all make it a woman's choice from your perspective?

>>as for the statistics that i sited, may i remind you that in a few different posts i have stated that i do not support abortion as a means of population control. it wouldn't work anyway, considering the fact that these statistics have been noted in a society where abortion has been legal for more than twenty years. but outlawing abortion will complicate these problems.<<

You are saying that they don't apply and use them in the same paragraph. If they don't apply, how do they further your argument?

I do not hunt. I will not call a hunter who kills for a prize evil, but I do think that it is wrong to kill animals for fun. That is the purpose of hunting when it is not for food. I understand that they are not the same. In this light, how are they similar? Hunting is not needed to keep down the population. Many animals are now extinct because of it (the dodo bird or the carrier pidgeon come to mind). The only grey that I can see out of this example is that the government needs to force abortion for population control. This would violate a woman's choice and then therefore be wrong under the pro-choice stance. It seems black and white to me.

Fragilis the Melodical:

I understand your point now. I was accepting the pro-choice stance of "it's the woman's choice." I personally would be devestated if a woman decided to kill my child (hopefully I will never be in such a position, abstance is a great comfort). So there are degrees to choice as well? Why have we only been discussing why the woman needs a choice and not why she should not have the choice? You see, there are polar views to this, and as you have pointed out some in the middle. I find those in the middle hard to back up, and they have not been argued. For example most people who are "pro-life" (George W. Bush for example) believe that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother. They take the view of absence of choice at pregnancy relates to a choice for abortion. I consider this argument weak because they will justify murder through an illegal act. The pro abortion rites stance says that all women should have the power to choose basically because the mother is viewed as more valuable or has more power than the child. This position is more tenable. Therefore, there is choice or there isn't. Meeting it halfway may be good for politicians, but the logic lies on shaky ground. How can you determine who needs to review an unwanted pregnancy? The arguments of back-alley abortions will still be ineffect if a judge or a doctor or a spouse tells a woman that she can't have her choice. If you say that another person can decide the fate of the child other than the mother other than for the fact that abortion is wrong, the backalley abortions that would cause would not be worth the loss of choice. It is in my opinion worth the gain of life.

did anyone else get the same interpretation of my last few postings as nosretep did? i'm just wondering if i am losing my ability to articulate my arguments, or if nosretep is losing his ability to comprehend the written word. i'm thinking it may be the latter, as i am having a hard time following some of his posts. i've completely lost track of what was black and what else is white, and which one becomes purple under the right shade of cloud.

and yes, ormondroyd, that was the page i was getting the information from. thank you.