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

In answer to the specific points raised in the entry, here is my response to those questions:

1) No, abortion should not be illegal.

2) Yes, women should be allowed the freedom of choice (with appropriate consideration given where the woman concerned is unable to make a reasoned and informed choice alone).

3) No, selective abortion does not seem acceptable to me, although it is difficult to make this a hard-and-fast rule. If a woman or the other babies are at risk if the selective abortion is not performed, then obviously this would alter things. If someone elects to have children though, how can they say 'this one lives and this one dies'?

4) Yes, if a person feels that they (or the child) could not live/cope with the handicap (however severe), then abortion should be an option. Quality of life for baby, parents, and the baby's siblings is of paramount importance.

5)No, the sex of the child should be immaterial. If a person is not able to love and care for a child regardless of sex, then perhaps they should not become parents at all? There are also far more serious social implications of a society that can choose the sex of it's offspring.

6)

*oops, hit the wrong button*

6) Whether the foetus feels pain is a very speculative question, but I would imagine that the likely answer is yes. However, farm animals slaughtered for meat also feel pain, but this does not prevent them being butchered, and they have no choice in the matter! I know some would say that human life is different, but then this raises many other questions, such as whether we should be 'wasting' money trying to prevent animal species dying out, which could be spent on contraceptive advice and medical research, which could drastically reduce the numbers of abortions.

7) No, I do not think that parents should ultimately be able to intervene if they do not want their child to have an abortion. However, where an under-age mother wishes to keep her child, it should be ascertained how she will cope, whether it will be with/without the support of her parents, and adequate support should also be made available from other sources.

8) No, the biological father should not be able to intervene. He does not have to carry the pregnancy (with all the associated risks and discomforts), is not under the same social pressure to care for the child ('bad mother' may be applied to someone who doesn't like breast-feeding or feels the need to go to work and leave her baby with a child-minder, whereas a 'bad father' is generally nothing short of one who is violent or deliberately neglectful - if he doesn't feel like getting up in the middle of the night to feed and change nappies, that's considered okay, because he's not the 'mother'), and in some cases, he may have got her pregnant 'deliberately' to force an issue (it's not just women who use the 'trapping' method!)

9) No, not really. Adoption is not a flawless solution. Having gone to school with several adopted children, I witnessed the varying degrees of unhappiness suffered. There are thousands of unadopted children awaiting parents, and although there is said to be a shortage of babies for adoption (surely a good thing?), it cannot be the best alternative. Both child and parent are likely to suffer from the separation and uncertainty for their whole lives. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is obviously the best solution, but keeping abortion as an option for those who know that giving birth is not for them (for whatever reason) is a must.

Just to help clarify my position, I am a parent, and although I am pro-choice, I never considered abortion, as I felt capable of taking on the responsibility, although I was never prepared for the enormous emotional demands parenting places on you.

I have known someone who took the very 'flippant' decision to have an abortion (as if taking a pill), and have a close friend who sadly lost a baby in the early months of preganancy, and who now has had a healthy (and heavy!) bundle of joy.

Everyone is different. Let's keep freedom of choice a part of 'human rights'.

~A~

1. No, abortion should not be legal in any case.
2.No. How is this different than China killing children to enforce their one child policy?
3. Good question. Where do you draw the line? Why does a person with disabilities have less of a right to myself. A person who wears glasses could also be seen as a person with a "minor abnormality. Once one form of abortion is acceptible all forms are.
4. This question also deals with eugenics as does the earlier one. No the mother should not be able to abort based on the sex of the child. This is also a policy that Communist China enforces. If you do have a child, have a boy. This is extremely wrong and simply reduces the child to an object to be thrown away if he does not satisfy the parents.
5 Yes, a child does feel pain before the 24 week gestation period. The question posed here is: Are you saying that acow has as much value as a human being?
6. Yes minors should have to report to their parents. They have to report to their parents for a dental check-up. Why should they not have to for something that is drastically more important?
7. Yes. the baby is indeed half his so he should have a say. This is a key argument. If the child is born than I have to pay for it. That is responsibility. With responsibility comes rights. Men's rights have been taken away by legalizing abortion.
8.Adoption is a viable alternative. To say it is not flawless is a very weak argument. Abortion is certainly not flawless. Many things go terribly wrong in abortion and the mother has to deal with the physical and psychological consequences.

To clarify my position, I used to be pro-choice. I have made a 180 and my life is for the better. I believe that their is little to no logic to the pro-abortion argument. I am also Catholic (Oh no!) and against contraception. Abortion is very much a human rights issue. If the feotus is human it is entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The latter two rights are completely meaningless if a person does not have the right to life to enjoy them.

This is also a policy that Communist China enforces. If you do have a child, have a boy

This is entirely incorrect. The Chinese policy is one child, not one boy! In fact, the Chinese government has virtually banned ultrasounds because of the problem caused by parents having more boys than girls.

Unfortunately, the consequence of having a one child policy coupled with the country's perception that baby boys are preferable to baby girls has resulted in mothers terminating or abandoning their children if they are girls.

The downside to this, which has been going on for some generations now, is that the yonger generation is now completely skewed to boys, who now have difficulty finding wives, and this has resulted in other social problems, such as young girls being stolen from country villages, or neighbouring countries.

This is also a policy that Communist China enforces. If you do have a
child, have a boy I am sorry for the miscommunication. What I was trying to say was that there is a preference of boys over girls. I totally agree with what you said. You just said it better.

What a gracious answer



Thank you

>Men's rights have been taken away by legalizing abortion<

Men's escape routes will be taken away by illegalizing abortion.

for the women who face the decision of abortion, the man involved does not always jump for joy at hearing he has won the conception lotto. i would say at least fifty percent of the time his response is, "how much money do you need for the abortion?", not,"great, honey, when do you want to get married?"

Exactly, wow I couldn't have said it better myself. And Ormondroyd calls me a misogynist. " I'm sorry that I am an irresponsible schmuck and would rather a person die than give up my life of convenience. Here is some cash, go kill our baby" Wow , if that doesn't prove that abortion is anti-woman than I don't know what will. I mean, seriously, if abortion is supposed to be so liberating to a woman than why is all the responsibility of the abortion put on the woman. It's just an easy way for uncaring men to abandon women then take responsibility for what they have done. Of course I'nm still fighting with idiots who think that sex doesn't produce babies. escape routes indeed.

I must qualify anthony's post for it to make any sence to me. I define liberating as set free. Biologically, abortion sets a woman free from pregnancy, but it cannot set her totally free. For example, we cannot have total liberation from the government as long as we are members of the system. What we mean when we say "give me liberty" is that we want freedom from the oppression of government. Likewise, women want freedom from the oppression of pregnancy. The problem here (from a Pro-Life perspective) is that women view pregnancy as oppressive. As long as pregnancies exist that are unwanted (a.k.a. as long as the human race still exists), pregnancy will be seen by some as oppressive. This is derived from the circumstances of the pregnancy, and this is sad. I am sure that everyone would agree that this world would be a better place if the circumstances of pregnancy are allways ideal. Unfortunately, this is impossible. We cannot have total liberation from the circumstances of pregnancy. Therefore, we cannot have liberation from pregnancy. Abortion cannot give liberation at all. The only liberation from pregnancy is the ability to not get pregnant. Because birth control does fail, the only true liberty is abstance. This too can be taken away. This is why social pressures and rape are so terrible. Social pressures can take away freedom, rape does. And as I am continuing to stray off this string, I am cutting myself off.