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

Several people here have suggested that the best and most effective, and most humane, way of cutting down on the number of abortions is to educate people better and offer councelling and also free birth control options. I agree.

Perhaps one other important factor to consider is to educate men *even* better, not only about birth control, but about their own responsiblities. Hoo, I think you must have read that same article about abortions in Russia that I did, and one of the points they made was that it was going to be difficult to educate the men there to treat women better as apparently this is not the norm at the moment.

Now, I'm not 'man-bashing' or anything, but it's been my experience (and many other women's experiences I know of) that often men are much less concerned about birth control than women are. That the onus is put on women to take precautions, yet often men balk at using a condom (even in this day and age with Aids and all! ). So then the woman is expected to take birth-control pills, which may or may not pose a health risk to them. In fact, there are many women who cannot take this drug as they get very serious side-effects from it.

Anyhow, I am assuming that when people here have talked about better educating people they meant both men and women. And I think that caring, educated and enlightened men *will* always take their share of responsibility for contraception. But it isn't these men I am talking about. And so, in terms of educating the masses better about taking proper precautions to avoid unwanted pregnancies it will need to start very early at school. And it will take a very long time before this becomes 'the norm'. But we have to start somewhere.

Still, despite any and all precautions, accidents continue to happen. So unwanted pregnancies will also continue to happen. How can it be seen as even remotely humane to subject a woman to either an unwanted birth or the unwanted option of an unsafe, unmedical abortion - to what end? To prove *what* point exactly?

az

Re posting 872

I've posted to this thread.

I'm a mother. My daughter is my heart's delight.

My pregnancy was a planned, thought-out and joint decision with my husband.

I was pro-choice before I became pregnant, and was interested to see if the experience would change my views.

I remain pro-choice.

Thank you

hi Clovis,

Spoken like a true pro-life/pro-choice individual.



az

"And yes i deleiberately used the word MAN for your benefit Nerd42."

Why, thank you. People at my church still call me a boy.

"While you're at it (if you *are* at it - answering people's questions to you) then tell me why you people call yourselves Prolife (capital P) when you only seem concerned with protecting a potential possible human life and not caring a jot about the real human existing life of the woman involved."

Now I'm the one repeating to someone who isn't listening:
As I've said before, whatever life can be saved must be saved, and more often than not, that is the mothers. As I've said before, I am greatly concerned for pregnant women, and I support the pro-life crisis pregnancy centers across the nation. And as I've said before, look who's appealing to emotions rather than facts now?

"Calling a foetus a baby is ridiculous, in my opinion. A baby is a what exists after a human is born. Not before."

I remember reading somewhere that fetus translated means "little person" but searching now, fetus means "offspring". In my opinion, being a fetus or baby is just another stage of growth for a human, just like toddler, teenager, and adult.

Found an interesting link on that search though: http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL1-02MQC/10-4-2002.1.html

Calling a fetus a tissue is ridiculous, in my opinion. Planned Parenthood's publications as a policy make sure never ever to use the B-word (baby) to describe an unborn child. They use dehumanizing language to disguise the facts. I break this taboo on purpose whenever I can because it somehow makes many people irrationally mad. One must wonder why?

I'll tell you why: It's because deep down they really *know* that abortion kills children, and they don't want to face the fact.

Nerd42

"Not exactly Nerd, there are lots of laws that you disagree with that you CHOOSE to follow, you could easily demonstrate against them by breaking them. The thing is laws as you well know are changeable and should act in the best interest of society, if they no longer perform a useful function they should really be changed."

OK, thanks to you, now I've made up my mind. I definately do support Operation Rescue.

Nerd42

"I cannot help but regard your referring me to Fox News as a sneer and a deliberate, calculated insult. I would trust Fox News no further on *any* subject, than I could throw an elephant! I am a lifelong pacifist, adamantly opposed to the Gulf War, the War on Iraq and any other American military adventure that Fox News promote and propagandise about."

I like FOX. I think it is indeed the most "fair and balanced" network, because no other television network gives conservative views any air time at all. If you want to talk about FOX news, go here:
Nerd42">F19585?thread=311499

In my opinion, men are more inclined to be Pro-Choice, because they view abortion as a way of getting themselves off the hook. Don't start gnawing on the old "you're not a woman, you've no right to talk about women's issues" bone again. The First Ammendment says I can talk about whatever I want, thank you.

Nerd42

Nerd - why do you keep referring to planned pregnancy? Noone here has anything to do with them as an organisation - why not restrict the discussion to what is said *here* rather than diverting attention away towards a faceless organisation?

Did the Internet adopt a constitution while I wasn't looking?

I do think Nerd is right about a fetus being at another life stage..as opposed to it being non-human tissue and then magically turning human later at some as yet undetermined point. Perhaps pro-choicers are truly the ones with the terminology problems - to call something a baby can imply personhood and sentience. But it also simply indicates that it is human, and I think most people are uncomfortable with the idea of killing humans, even if it is presentient, not a person, whatever. So, rather than pro-lifers humanizing, maybe pro-choicers are dehumanizing by refusing the term 'baby' in an endeavor to make the practice of abortion acceptable to their consciences. Just an idea anyway.

I'm pro-choice, but I was thankful for the perinatologist who saved the life of my baby. I was apprehensive about her, and I was fiercely determined that my fetus should get the best care possible (the procedures she had to have done aren't very common). Immediately I warmed up to her because she refered to my fetus as 'Punkin.' She probably felt comfortable doing this because it was obvious that I wanted to keep my fetus. It was beneficial to me because as the procedures to be done were frequent and quite unpleasant, feeling that I could in some way bond with my child helped me focus, commit to my cause better, etc. So, I called her a baby, found out her sex as soon as possible so I could name her, tacked her 6 week ultra-sound picture up with the label 'baby' even though she was the size and shape of a pea...but then, I was also preparing myself should she have not survived. If she did die, it wouldn't have been my fault. If a fetus/baby dies by abortion, then the mother must find a way to deal with the fact that she *did* have to choose. Possibly a much harder road to travel, and could-be mothers in that position of moral purgatory have my every sympathy.

This point has been brought up before, but at what point do you believe the ovum becomes a child? Are you of the opinion that *Every sperm is sacred* to quote Monty Python, or that the moment the sperm penetrates the egg is the point of no return? I don't mean to stir things up, I really would like to know. (This question is for Nerd and (N)yssa and anyone else who wants to say).

Just so you know where I stand, personally I respect all your beliefs unless they could be used to force an individual to do something with their body they don't want to do and I believe a child is created when the umbilical is cut.

<>



Go for it, Zoomer! Well said.

az

I'm another mother with two planned & greatly loved children.
Before I was pregnant, knowing the tests that are routinely undertaken, hubby & I had discussed the possibility of terminating a diagnosed disabled foetus and agreed that we probably would terminate. Fortunately we were not put in that situation.
Having felt the baby move at about 20 weeks, about the time that the test results were available, I changed my opinion, I did not feel that I could terminate at that stage.
I think it must be an agonising decision to have a late termination, but there are usually extremely good reasons.
I suspect that the majority of terminations are done at an early stage. I know that there are some women who choose a termination for apparently flimsy reasons, but many who choose as the lesser of two (or more) evils.
I am still firmly pro-choice, but endorse the need for good counselling & education.

Nerd42,

Do you deliberately ignore questions you do not feel equipped to deal with or are you just skipping over the backlog and not bothering to read or reply to people's posts? Anything difficult or anything that challenges your faith-based position is conveniently ignored.

Please answer these simple, direct questions:

(Take 3) Which is better:

- The mother surviving and a foetus, which would not survive anyway it is so deformed, dying,
or,
- Both mother and foetus dying.

&

- Women getting butchered by non-sanctioned 'backstreet' amateurs,
or,
- Women getting the best medical and psychological attention that society can offer?


Nerd, no-one here represents or mentions Planned Parenthood. Stop arguing with them. Also, there are people here that live *outside of the USA*. I know that is traditionally hard for American right-wingers to grasp (them being not the brightest of groups), but it is true.

Feotuses, embryos and zygotes are called that for a reason, it's a biological/technical term that is used to describe the developmental stages. Also, a foetus is certainly not a tissue, nor an organ, nor anything but a foetus. An embryo is an embryo. A zygote is a zygote. No-one is dehumanising or denying human foetuses/pro-lifers/dangerous fundamentalist christian right-wing extremists anything. They use the word 'baby' - the incorrect term - to bring emotion into a discussion which should be about facts. Saying one just 'knows' that one's foetus is a baby is not good enough for law, because that's as far as the proof goes on the matter.


'It's because deep down they really *know* that abortion kills children, and they don't want to face the fact.'

Spoken like a true fundamentalist zealot. Remember Justin the Preacher? He used to insist the deep down, everyone believed in God. - When someone's beliefs differ from yours just stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and just insist that they think the same way you do. It's a lot easier isn't it? No thinking or human apathy is needed. I might give it a go.

Deep down Nerd, you *know* that women shouldn't have to die because some non-thinking dogmatic fanatic wants to force his minority beliefs onto the populace. You don't want to face the facts and the guilt.

Ahh, that feels nice. I'll go watch some Fox News now. Maybe some talk radio so I don't even have to form any independant opinions.





Nyssa said:

'I do think Nerd is right about a fetus being at another life stage..as opposed to it being non-human tissue and then magically turning human later at some as yet undetermined point.'

I'm not sure anyone is saying it's non-human. I'm not, as it's clearly a human foetus. I'm saying that it isn't a human being, that a foetus before 24 weeks isn't a person. It turns into a human being when it develops the characteristics of a human, no magic needed.


'Perhaps pro-choicers are truly the ones with the terminology problems - to call something a baby can imply personhood and sentience.'

That's why 24 weeks is a set time limit: There is no sentience nor personhood at that stage, after that it's debateable.

Even at 38 weeks it is *still* a foetus, but that doesn't mean it can be aborted for any reason just because it's not named a certain thing which makes people react in a certain way. The terminology on the pro-choice side is correct, trust me. Terminology is just a side-show here anyway, it allows pro-lifers to skirt around the fact that they care more about potential life that the health and wellbeing of women.


Ste

'No thinking or human apathy is needed.'
=
'No thinking or human empathy is needed.'

Nyssa, thanks for your remarks. But I think there is a fundamental difference between American Christians/anti-abortionists and ones outside the USA. I am what I call an Anglo-Catholic, I have never been a Baptist, though I have flirted with a sub-type o evangelical fundamentalism. I have what you might call 'radical' left politics, and have always been a keen fan of science, having been brought up by 'atheist' parents! I used to practically go into the big O over moon missions in the stinking ' 60s, and if I could understand maths at all, I would have made my career in science! That's why I took Potholer's remarks amiss - stereotypes *always* hurt!

>>but I guess something similar can be true for women who have given away a child for adoption. In either case it's not an easy decision to make, and not one most people are likely to take lightly or forget.<<
I have given up a child for adoption. I didn't want to, I qwould rather have brought him up myself. Having done that did not make me decide on abortion the next time I was pregnant in a sticky situation - I 'kept' the child, and he's 16 now. There *is* no easy decision, whatever the woman does - that's why I sometimes think avoiding men altogether is the answer!
Ooops, I better make sure *everyone* here knows I am joking about that, or I'll get accused of advocating celibacy! (Which is not a bad idea, if it is a person's free *choice*, by the way...

Teasswill, I am interested in what you say about terminating a disabled baby.
I work in special education, with people with disabilities, and I have friends who are the parents of children with disabilities. I realise that I can't know what sort of special hell the parents go through - I, after all, can go home at the end of school, and don't have to deal.
But I think it's a pity that people seem to automatically think in terms of termination. People with Downs Syndrome for instance, can vary enormously in their abilities, and 90% of those I know with Downs Syndrome enjoy their lives very much!

CL Zoomer. I don't really know. At some point egg+sperm becomes a unique genetic code with a living being to perpetuate it. I don't actually hold anything sacred..well, not anything that I have a solid logical justification for. What I'm *interested* in is what I suppose is also a response to Ste - the problems inherent in the terms 'human life' and 'person' and why we, as humans, create them, seem to need them so much in order to function. The first term is, very shortly after conception, inarguably a living human, to be redundant. Note that I don't assign a value to the thing. That's where people come in with personhood and the potentiality thereof. This second term is useless, in my opinion. What is a person? A sentient human? What is sentience? At best, we guess that it's a function of synaptic activity that begins at some as-yet undetermined point and increases in complexity throughout the fetal life. There is no real 24 week cut off - it's arbitrary, and it will *always* be arbitrary until the science to define *and* detect sentience is within our means. And when we have that exact date, and a nice little litmus paper test that can be prodded into the fetal brain to detect it (as physiology varies, obviously), we still are left with the problem of non-fetal humans who could be said to not have sentience. If we find a similar test for catatonic patients who engage the world minimally and who are rarely self-aware, what can be done with them if they test similarly to a 22 week fetus? Does anyone see the problems here? 1. There is no on/off switch for personhood that gets flipped at some point - it's a complicated *process* that begins with cell division. 2. a. We should be honest and say that to abort a fetus is to end a human life. If that doesn't bother anyone, then b. Are we comfortable possibly killing sentient humans. If so, nifty. Then are we comfortable killing other grey area persons? Again, the consistency thing. I just think it would be, from a perspective of murder and a society that claims to abhor it, more honest to admit that we tolerate a certain degree of people-killing. I think emotional rationalization is useful in the immediacy of grief and loss, but when people try to sort out issues of who they are and how they wish to live their lives, I don't think people benefit ultimately from philosophical cop-outs and emotional cover-ups.

I think there's a lot more to this than who does or does not care about the rights and health of women. We're mired in the continuing struggle to decide who we are as ethical creatures as we confront mind-bending moral dilemmas. The ability to self-define seems to be necessary for our psychological survival.

Adele:

"But I think there is a fundamental difference between American Christians/anti-abortionists and ones outside the USA."

There may be some minor differences, but the fundamental similarity is that you, like the American Christians you seem to be trying to distance yourself from, seek to impose your irrational opinion on other people and deny other women a choice you've been allowed to make for yourself.

"I am what I call an Anglo-Catholic, I have never been a Baptist, though I have flirted with a sub-type o evangelical fundamentalism."

How unsurprising.

"I have what you might call 'radical' left politics,"

You have what I might call "irrational confused politics" - anti-women's choice is hardly leftist.

"and have always been a keen fan of science"

I love this phrase. I'm reminded of Slartibartfast in chapter 22 of the original "Hitchhikers", absently tossing in the non-sequitur "I'm a great fan of science you know.... Oh yes."

"having been brought up by 'atheist' parents!"

Why the 'quotes'? Were they only pretending to be atheists to fool you? Did it work?

"I used to practically go into the big O over moon missions in the stinking ' 60s,"

What an interesting turn of phrase you have...

"and if I could understand maths at all, I would have made my career in science!"

Lucky escape for science, I say.

Important point here. The implication is that you cannot understand maths at all.

I would therefore reiterate the advice, offered you by me and several other people in this thread and angrily rejected by you on the highly rational grounds that those offering it were (horrors!) male, that you ask a different doctor about your risk of breast cancer.

Your complete failure to understand statistics has left you in the dangerous position of believing - you tell us - that since you've done two things which each reduce your risk by 50%, you now have a risk level of 100-50-50=0%.

YOU know that you understand nothing of maths - you've just told us. Take it from someone with a much greater understanding that you have been dangerously misinformed.

"stereotypes *always* hurt!"

May I advise you further, then, that with almost every post you further reinforce the stereotype of the brittle, reactionary, irrational, undereducated, self-satisfied feminist? I accept that you may not, in fact, be like that in real life. If you're not, you're doing a jolly good job of making it seem like you are.

Just for information....

H.

" There is no on/off switch for personhood that gets flipped at some point - it's a complicated *process* that begins with cell division."

Which is precisely what *I*'ve been saying.

"2. a. We should be honest and say that to abort a fetus is to end a human life."

I'd have to insert the word "potential" in that sentence in the interests of accuracy.

"If that doesn't bother anyone, then b. Are we comfortable possibly killing sentient humans."

The answer is clearly "no" (or should be).

"Then are we comfortable killing other grey area persons? Again, the consistency thing."

Again, default answer must be "no".

"I just think it would be, from a perspective of murder and a society that claims to abhor it, more honest to admit that we tolerate a certain degree of people-killing."

But we already admit that.

Even the civilised world tolerates a certain degree of people killing - we engage in wars, police forces are permitted in certain circumstances to employ deadly force in self- or public defence, we allow dangerous sports etc.

In my own job, as an engineer, I'm involved in risk assessment. It may sound callous, but when it comes to engineering, there's a monetary value to human life. For instance - you have a limited amount of money available. There are two projects you have to weigh up - both will reduce the risk to human life of processes you're operating. You *cannot* do both. So you make a choice. The other process is left to continue operating, potentially killing someone at some later date. The choice is sometimes bedevilled with odd factors. It's a hot issue in this country (hint for women not paying attention: "this country" = "the UK") because there is much public concern over the safety of the railways. Rail is already one of the safest forms of transport, but because rail crashes are rare, shocking and telegenic events, there is public demand to improve safety, even though the cost of doing so is enormous. A really, really bad rail crash may kill 30 people. Meanwhile, 30 people die EVERY DAY in road accidents - but because they're not all in the same place, there's no public pressure to spend public funds on improving road safety. We tolerate those deaths. We are therefore complicit in them.

Hospitals do not have infinite resources. There are more people needing donor organs than there are organs. Choices are made. Some people live, others die.

I don't think that anyone is covering their eyes to this. Most people posting in this thread are capable of rational thought and reasoning, and those who aren't, fortunately, don't matter. Reasonable people don't like to think about these hard choices, because they are hard. But I don't think we deny that they are there. If you want denial, you just need to look to the anti-choice people, who think that by outlawing something they'll make it go away. Yeah, right, that approach is working great on cannabis, huh? Never hear of anyone touching that stuff since it was outlawed...

H.