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

>Well, the zoology biologist has said that all life is made of cells. Therefore if something has cells it is alive. Also from a cellular perspective, he has said that the job of a cell is to make proteins. <

Well, by your definition of humanity as the zygote being able to synthesize the necessary proteins, then isn't an ant human? It does the exact same thing. So do bacteria. I don't see life as a benefit to society. I hate the current global society, and I also believe my perspective has scientific merit as well, as one of my primary arguments is the fact the the foetus is literally not living according to the laws of my country, and is clinically dead until the time it's brain kicks in.

<Where did I say I had? And what point is that?<

Actually, you did say you had had an abortion, but were refering to another person's post. I was being facetious, though, so don't worry about it.

>Where does the mother get the nutrients?<

Undoubtedly yes, the mother's nutrients come from her environment, but she does not rely completely on another organism for them. She feeds herself, and purchases/catches her own food, sautees it or whatever, gets her husband to or whatever, and eats it. She is not completely dependant upon anything except the planet, and the planet aborts us whenever the planet so feels the urge. How does dependency invalidate life?
Well, here's how. You are infringing on anothers right to INdependancy. Also, if you cannot live on your own, under your own power, you are not alive. When you have a machine breathing for you, and you're just absorbing nutrients because you have a machine breathing for you, you can still be dead.

>There are things we do involuntarily (heart beat, pupil dialation, digestion, cellular resperation, the list goes on and on). We really have very little choice. How do we have command of our bodies in the way you mean?<

Easy. Shoot yourself. I advocate the human's right to suicide as well. It's not even illegal in Canada. So there you go, in Canada, we have ultimate control over everything in and of our bodies.
We can stop them when we want.

>Ok then, stop your heart. You have to force your body to do that. Get rid of the bacteria in your stomach. You have control over very few things about your life. You have no "right" to just go around changing things. We are not gods.<

Actually, if I so chose, I could do any of those things. I could go around changeing things if I chose, too. I mean, that's what the principles of freedom and democracy are bred on. Those are good. (capitalism is bad! democracy=good, capitalism=bad.)

True! a war will affect my life. So will a bullet in my head. BUT! when those things choose to try to affect my life, I have the right to kill them to protect the course of my life. There you go. Why can't a mother fight against an unwanted foetus like you'd fight against an unwanted army?

>>having a child would have meant that I would have had to give up my education and hopes of university, as well as quite possibly having to go my own way and support a child on non-existent funds<<

It is a difficult decision to make when you don't have any support. But hear me out. If you were pregnant, I believe that you would have had a child. That child would just be inside you. I do not believe that the government has the right to say to any person that they are not human. It was wrong in the days of slavery and it is wrong now. You will disagree with me I know, but sometimes we just need to live with the consequences of our actions. Taking the easy way out will only hurt more in the long run.

Clarke:

>>Well, by your definition of humanity as the zygote being able to synthesize the necessary proteins, then isn't an ant human?<<

First of all, this was not my definition. Second of all, no. If an ant manufactured all of the same proteins as a human then it would have the same genetic code as a human. It does not.

On a side note, if reproduction were a requirement for a cell to be alive then red blood cells would be dead.

>>I don't see life as a benefit to society.<<

But if someone is brain-dead (dead to the world) then they would have no benefit to society. You don't seem to believe that humans have any inherant value. Perhaps I was wrong.

>>one of my primary arguments is the fact the the foetus is literally not living according to the laws of my country, and is clinically dead until the time it's brain kicks in.<<

So the government can determine who lives and who dies. I'm glad I don't live in Canada.

>>Undoubtedly yes, the mother's nutrients come from her environment, but she does not rely completely on another organism for them.<<

Actually without the bacteria in our stomachs we could not survive. We are therefore dependant upon them.

>>How does dependency invalidate life? Well, here's how.... Also, if you cannot live on your own, under your own power, you are not alive.<<

That is circular.

>>When you have a machine breathing for you, and you're just absorbing nutrients because you have a machine breathing for you, you can still be dead.<<

What do you mean by dead? Biologically? Socially? Again, this seems circular.

>>I advocate the human's right to suicide as well.<<

I do not, but that is off the topic.

>>Why can't a mother fight against an unwanted foetus like you'd fight against an unwanted army?<<

My example was meant to show that we don't have control. If you are responsible for the army's presence, then they do have the right to be there i.e. the Russians in Germany during WWII. In most cases, you are responsible for the unborn child's presence.

Here is an article from the Washington Times on legislation to protect infants who survive abortions.
[URL removed by moderator]
I was wondering whether you all believe that this bill is necessary, "good," or just a way to try and restrict abortion access. I believe that it should not be necessary, but based on what I have seen unfortunately it is. I also do not know the Republicans true intent, but I support do support this bill.

unfortunately, nosretep, your url was removed before anyone saw it. you can re-post it if it is part of an entry (like your userspace, or like i did: create a seperate entry solely for exterior links) and then post the url to the entry here (bbc url's will not be removed from posts.)

Just my thoughts, but don't you find it curious that those who make the most noise about being pro-life/anti abortion tend to be american men - those self same people that support the death penalty.

Now call me stupid but if arbotion is murder then so is the death penalty (self evidently) - therefore unless one wishes to be hypocritical you cannot be an anti abortionist without also being against the death penalty.

If we continue this argument, you therefore should also be for gun control as guns (particularly in the USA) lead to death as inevitably as the sun rising in the morning.

For myself I firmly and passionatley believe in the right of a woman to choose what is best for her, hopefully after listening to all the arguments and advise available, but it is her choice.

Finally,I firmly and passionatley believe in the right of free speech and will protect with my life the right of people to express their views, no matter how odd, cranky, abhorent or downright offensive those views may be; provided they don't breach any laws.

I realize I'm joining this discussion rather late; I'm a newcomer to the guide, and had been hunting around looking at topics when I ran across this conversation, and wanted to pose just a quick question...exactly how is abortion a preservation of a "woman's right?" It seems to me that as a pre-born being has its own specific genetic code, making it an entity independant of its mother, laws prohibiting the denial of life to that being do not negate the mother's rights. Rather, they protect the rights of the unborn individual. Thanks for letting me contribute so late!

ross, that's a connection i had failed to make, and you are exactly right, but now that you mention it, it does sound curious. those are the same men who, against all evidence of history and progress, still feel that they know what is better for you than you do. republicans. their biggest argument against abortion is religion, which creates a contradiction with their position on the death penalty. george w. had one of the highest rates of death row executions while governor of texas, yet constantly laments how the country has fallen away from christian values and ideals. and, yes, he also supports the idea of every american packing heat (not literally of course, but republican ideas on gun control are rather lax).

essentially it sends the message: 'you shouldn't abort because abortion is wrong. suffer for nine months (because you deserve it), bear labor, then let us decide if it should live or be murdered. you're not qualified to make that decision.'

cristiana, abortion is not a preservation of a woman's right. the availability of abortion preserves a woman's (or a couple's) right to *choose*. it is also important to realize that someone who is pro-choice isn't necessarily in favor of freely available abortion across the board. there are so many shades of grey to this issue (and i've probably just contradicted myself somewhere). it's very easy to be pro-life if you know you will never be in the position to have to choose. it is also easy to be pro-life if you know that come-what-may abortion will never be right for you.

but how do you justify making that decision for millions of women in different situations with different perspectives and belief systems? those who are pro-life want to prevent *everyone* from having access to abortion resources and information. but what if the tables were turned? what if the moral majority felt that each family should contain just one child and any other pregnancies must be aborted? how would you feel having a decision that was not yours forced upon you?


and completely off topic:
welcome to h2g2 to you both

Firstly, thank you, broelan, for the welcome to H2G2! I've been having a great time wandering around the guide looking at, well, everything.

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree, however, with what you wrote. I understand that as I'm not likely to be in a position where abortion would be an option, it may seem that I have no understanding of the plight of those who do discover themselves in a difficult situation. Using this as a reason in favor legal abortion, however, can prove something of a logical difficulty. For example, it is commonly accepted that stealing something is wrong. It isn't difficult for most people to recognize this--there are some, however, who do not feel bound by a moral obligation NOT to steal, and who will act on their beliefs (namely, that it's OK to take someone else's property). What do we do with those people? If we accept a relativistic view of right and wrong (that what's right for me may not be right for you), we have to accept that there's no way to punish the thief's behavior. It was obviously right for him. But it gets worse even than that. Suppose instead of a thief, we have a murderer. S/he obviously does not place the same value on life that most of the rest of society does, but does that mean that I am obligated to accept her belief that it's OK to kill as being valid? What I'm saying is that the moral arena is not a democracy. Not everyone's values are equal. We affirm this every time we fine a thief or imprison a killer.

This is why I must abortion. In my opinion, a woman may have the right to choose a political affiliation, a job, a mate, where to live, how to style her hair, and what kind of breakfast cereal to eat in the mornings (etc, etc). But she should not have the right to choose life or death for another human being.

Sorry about the large snafu in my last post. The first sentence of the last paragraph should read: This is why I must OPPOSE abortion. Thanks, and sorry again about my blunder!

Christiana,

The dilema here is surely at what point do we define the fetus as a viable life? Is it the point of conception? Is it when life can be sustained outside the womb? if the latter is it with or without major medical intervention?

My view, for what it is worth, is that abortion should be available up to the point that a fetus can sustain life outside the womb - which I believe to be at approx 8-12 weeks after conception. During this initial period a woman (or couple) should have the right to choose whether to continue with the pregnancy or not.

Also if we were to ban abortion entirely, how would we stop so called "back street" abortions, how would we deal with unwanted children, how would we deal with pregnancies as a result of rape, or as a result of sexual abuse, or as a result of the failure of birth control?

Also does the "morning after pill" constitute abortion?

Both sides in this debate need to rationally address these questions and not lose sight of the fact that in every pregnancy there are at least 2 and usually 3 parties that need to be considered (mother, fetus and father?)

First of all, thanks Ross, for bringing up some aspects of abortion that are sometimes overlooked within the debate. I completely agree with you that it's important to discuss all parts of an issue in order to be able to make as accurate a judgment as is possible.

Now to address your points. You say that you believe abortion should be permitted until an individual is capable of sustaining its own life outside the womb, which ability is supposedly gained at 13 weeks of gestation. How, though, do you define self-sufficience? In the strictest sense, even a newborn child is unable to sustain its own life. At least in the womb, given a limited amount of resources, its body automatically monitors much of its own maintenance. Once out of the womb, it is explicitly and completely dependant on its parents for care, making it seem as though we humans lose some of our natural ability to sustain ourselves once we are born. You also mention that 12 weeks should be the cut-off point for legal abortion, presumably since at 13 weeks a fetus is more able to survive outside of the womb. What should happen, though, if it should later become possible for infants to survive even more premature births (say after only 5 or 6 weeks of gestation)? Should abortion laws be changed to reflect the new technology? What is needed is a definition of life based on characteristics true of (and observable in) all life, not a definition based on a sliding scale subject to future change.

One of the biological definitions of "life" in Webster's dictionary says that life is "an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction." A fetus, by this definition, qualifies as a living entity, and in fact, qualifies as such from the moment it is conceived, the notable exception being that before birth it doesn't possess the ability to reproduce, but then again, neither does your average 10 year old--does this disqualify him as a living being?

I am not so idealistic as to believe that making abortion illegal would prevent "back-alley" abortions. And while it's unfortunate that these would occur, there's one major point to consider. As a society (any society), we legislate for our citizens. Drunk driving and the usage of hard drugs are two major problems in our culture, yet we make them illegal in spite of the fact that they occur. Why not do the same for abortion? If it really is forcible ending of human life (by biological definitions), how can we not make it illegal? Would it be better to legalize and monitor drunk driving in an attempt to make life "safer" for everyone involved?

I don't believe there is such a thing as an unwanted child. A baby may not be wanted by its parents, but I guarantee that someone out there wants it. For every Caucasian child born (in the US), there are between 20 and 30 couples wanting to adopt it. People literally bid on children. Yes, choosing adoption necessitates some hard work on the part of the birth mother. In this matter there are two options: abortion and no child, or a temporary pain/inconvenience resulting in a new human life for which someone out there earnestly desires to care. Is there really any comparison?

You asked about the "morning after" pill. I won't beat around the bush on this one. Since the pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, and since I believe that life begins at conception (for the record, no, I am not Catholic), I do object to its usage.

I agree that all three people involved in an unplanned pregnancy need to be considered. However, just because all three have rights in the matter, those rights must not be equal. For example, I have the right to swing my fist as hard as I can in someone else's general direction (not that I would do so--I do not condone violence), but my right to swing ends where the other person's body (or property) begins. This principle applies to abortion. It's not merely a matter of preserving the confort or feelings of the parents; it's about preserving the right of another human being to claim its own life.

I apologize for the length of this entry, and want to say thanks once again for all the discussion. One of the things I enjoy most about this forum is that it allows for rational conversation without all the detrimental emotional involvement.

I'd advise you to read some of the backlog, Christiana. Many of your points have been addressed and/or countered.

Good idea, thanks. Sorry if I've been redundant! I was just trying to address Ross' points.