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

Tonight at 9pm Channel 4 are showing a programme entitled "Life Before Birth" - Before it takes its first breath, the human baby has already undertaken an incredible journey. In this two-hour programme, astonishing footage provides a unique view of this transformation from single cell to living, breathing baby.

I'll be watching this - scans used to fascinate me as I never got the opportunity to see my unborn babies before this technology was available.

Do you know unborn children don't have human rights?
I am raising a petition to amend this.
A3868464
I have made a web page here: http://www.webspawner.com/users/shruf/index.html
but I am trying to find webspace which offers better facilities (sign the petition there etc.)

Your thoughts, always welcome.

Traveller in Time still breathless by the miracle
"Where do I sign? "

There are none so blind as those who will not (and cannot) see. Let us hope that the new technologies that will allow us to see *exactly* what a precious thing we've been destroying will convince the general public that these helpless children desperately need to be protected with the same regard as other infants.

I also applaud your efforts at ending this terrible oversight in law, AGB.

Send me an email the address is on this page A3868464

Thanks Serephina and AWs

I've seen TV shows similar to the one you're talking about.

If I'd ever thought the pre-born baby was not quite a human being (I didn't), this one scene would have changed my mind:

We've all seen how the single cell divides and becomes two. But just a few scenes later, while still nothing more than an irregular looking "blob of cells", it was shown to have pulsating areas. They pulsated irregularly at this point, but in synchronization with each other. What were they? They were the cells that would join to form the heart. All the cells are specialized, and as they multiply, they also start to gather together from different parts of the embryo to form their specialized function.

Some other points to ponder when people insist on the right to terminate a pregnancy:

> The developing baby's gender is different from the mother's gender about half the time. "Part of the woman's body" can not be a different gender from the woman.

> The heartbeat of the baby is separate from the mother's heartbeat.

> The baby has it's own DNA, not an exact duplicate of the mother's DNA, and therefore the baby is not just a "part of the mother's body".

I'd go sign your petition, but being an American, my voice would do nothing to further the protection of pre-born life in the UK.

There's nothing annoys me more than seeing a pregnant woman smoking, unless it's a pregnant woman smoking and drinking.
Then there's the "social drug users"and their baby ends up born addicted to something or seriously underweight..oh, don't get me started

I knew that unborn babies don't have any rights. I don't agree with abortion under any circumstances, but I wouldn't ever try to take away the right of a pregnant woman to chose that, or question her decision - although I reserve the right to be upset.

Good on you, Galaxy Babe! I am going to send you an email about this a.s.a.p - I have to go out soon, but when I get back...

Excellent!

GB, I support what you're doing and I thank you for it. I especially agree with the abstention by pregnant women from using non-prescription drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. So I believe that I will sign your petition.

However I have a question first; there seems to be a lack of definition to what you hope to achieve. You simply state that you would like to grant human right[s] to the unborn.
All well and good, but the development of a foetus is not a boolean quality - it doesn't go from being 'not-alive' to 'alive' or from 'foetus' to 'baby' in one clearly delineated step... it's a process of 'becoming'. My question is at what stage of development should these rights be granted?
Do you think that all rights as defined by the universal declaration of human rights, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (I assume that's agreeable as being a decent standard?,) should apply as soon as conception occurs? Or perhaps at some vital point during the development of the foetus, such as the lymphatic process beginning? Or should (as I suspect) various rights be granted at various stages of development?
For example, the right(? depends on the country I think) of the mother to terminate pregnancy ends at the beginning of the second trimester, and becomes replaced by the right of the unborn to live; but the right of the unborn to not be poisoned by cigarette smoke etc starts from conception? Just a thought.
Obviously there are a whole lot of sticky issues, and moral issues, surrounding not only this topic but also the topics around them.
I'm not the type of personality to want to get involved in any debates about them, but I do wish to make my point about the impossibility of demarcation of definitions surrounding these key issues. If this is kept in mind then I'm sure a reasonable set of values (for everyone) can be agreed upon to become a moral and just law.

Good luck, GB.

galaxybabe I am interested to know your views about the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of the unborn in Africa who have aids because the fathers didn't use condoms. Cultures in other places are very different from ours.....I believe we should respect them!

What I meant to say is that monogamy is often not the cultural norm in many African cultures, so because of the Aids epidemic, condoms should be encouraged - to prevent babies getting Aids

hi GB,

I think it commendable that you feel so strongly about protecting the health of a foetus - I agree with you that women should refrain from any sort of alcohol, tobacco, drug intake while they are pregnant.

Meanwhile, I agree with Jerms very thoughtful posting about how and when it would be decided and accepted that a foetus has become a being who should have human rights. This seems mostly based on opinion for the first trimester of pregnancy (when most elective terminations happen). Late-term terminations count for less than 1% of all terminations and are carefully monitored and only allowed when the health of the women is at serious risk.

Which brings me to Mina's comment:

<>

Of course people always have the right to feel upset about something. I'd only question the not agreeing with abortion under any circumstances. As many people here on hootoo already know, I got pregnant at age 36 and there were serious complications - three separate medical opinions (I got three just to be sure) stated that I was at risk of dying if I continued with my pregnancy and finally I had an abortion. Which totally broke my heart (and still does). Just to point out that sometimes there are circumstances that make an elective termination the only choice possible. And I had this done during the first trimester.

I honestly don't know where I stand about giving a foetus human rights - again, at which stage of development? From conception? After the first trimester? I am a bit of an oddball as I am very much 'pro-life' personally but also 'pro-choice' for others, as I would not and could not ever force my opinions onto others about what I consider to be such a personal issue.

But I think that Jerms has expressed most of my opinions on this already.

az

Hi azahar,

Now that I think about it, I think that risk of the mum dying would probably be an exception for me.

I really didn't want to get into a pro-life debate, or an AIDs debate.

In an ideal world I would like human foetus to be given rights at the first ante-natal, with another adult watching over the pregnant woman (I did some silly things while pregnant) and young children can turn your brain to mush.

I will give my opinions though, seeing as how I've been asked.

I think anyone diagnozed with AIDS shouldn't have sex with anyone else for the rest of their life.

I think condoms are a good thing, but I wouldn't force their use on someone whose religion forbids their use.

I don't think abortion should be a method of contraception, but there are circumstances where, like the mother's life or her mental state is in danger; conception after rape; a girl too young/immature to bear the child etc. Then my conscience would be clear, if I was the adult with the responsibility.

Azahar I admire your courage and am sympathetic for your loss.

Lost pregnancies oh I don't want to go there, I'm sorry.

I don't know if all this is going to be too painful for me, I'm remembering my Grandma today (20 years anniversary of her death) and I've stirred up a right hornet's nest.

I might just leave this subject for a less delicate time.

Thanks everyone.

Thank you Apple, for your lovely letter.

Galaxybabe I may disagree with you to some extent but you have my sympathy for your bereavment feelings. I know how painful loss can be, however long afterwards.....

You're welcome, Galaxy Babe...

I am most pleased that there remains an area where reason, understanding and tolerance prevails.

Thank you to you all, just for being yourselves.

GB I applaud what you are doing and what you are saying. I do respect your opinions and your wisdom gained over your life, I really do. But may I point out this...
'I think anyone diagnozed with AIDS shouldn't have sex with anyone else for the rest of their life.'

Having known someone with AIDS I cannot agree with this, but I do think they should not have sex again unless they give their partner the knowledge and choice. If the partner agrees, then who are we to say anything?

I hope you feel able to come back and work on this subject again soon, you have made people think and that is always commendable!

I'm not going to talk about abortion, but I know in some parts of the world unborn babies have more rights, like in heaps of places they're trying to change the law to make killing of one murder, instead of grievous bodily harm of the mother or whatever, and I think it's already happened in some places here, which is good. Although I don't so much mind about rights for embryos. Foetuses are different, I guess.