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

I agree with you about the rail situation, however, it makes a great political crowbar, which adds to it's tv worthiness.

I wonder, with the talk of 'life' at day 1...

There are many times that an egg will be fertilised and never implant. It can be 3 days from fertilisation before the egg is passed out of the body, it is as 'alive by your defination' at that point with or without implantation as a pregnancy that continues - would you consider that a "baby"?

nature herself aborts regularly - 1 in 3 (known)pregnancys end in miscarriage in the UK. Many will not have been viable so nature takes control and aborts, many will have been viable but are rejected for no reason.
But many women abort so early in the pregnancy they don't even know they were pregnant so we cannot guess the real number.
You may say it is the will of God, well maybe the will of God gives women the strength to make so painful a choice and guides her through it, God may give doctors and politicians the forsight and technology to do these in a safe way. So nature/will of God works for both causes perhaps? However, this is a slight digression.

What about IVF - Pro-life, does that mean you agree with doing everything to make a life possible or just once it has occured? What if the fertilised egg is sitting in a petri dish developing on artificial nutrients, dividing until the embryo is ready for implantation - in that plastic dish, is that a "baby"?
the cluster of cells that don't get implanted but are disposed of - is that the murder of a baby too? an out of body abortion??

It is ok not to understand or be able to have an opinion on it but to ignore it or spout the same old 'a baby is a baby' line without thinking about the bigger picture does not add any weight to your views.

posted as i was thinking it, so it may sound a choppy in places

So often the argument over how to describe human life at its various stages drags both sides into issues that are only matters of semantics. There can be no arguement that we are all describing the same process, its just that some will call it a baby (with all the associated emotion & imagery) whilst other's may talk about cell division (which seems a tad cold & scientific for such a miraculous event) What there can be no argument over is that we are talking about something that is alive, and at the very least has the potential for human consciousness. For what ever reasons it may occur a termination kills something that is alive.

I believe that life is a precious gift given to me by my God, and "I" do not have the right to take that away. This affects the decisions that "I" make in my life, but not everybody shares these beliefs. I belong to a society made up of many cultures, beliefs, and identities. Part of belonging to a society is that we accept and acknowledge this diversity of life. Just as it would be wrong for an atheist to force his beliefs on me, I cannot do the same.

I will support the decision's that other people make, even if I believe they are making a mortally wrong one. I believe that the right action is not to condemn & criticise but to offer gentle & loving support to people both before and after they have made their decision. Instead of attacking people (verbally & physically) we should look at how we can make a positive commitment to making out communities a better place for all people.

I'm sorry if this is a little all over the place, like the earlier poster it was written as I felt it. Unfortunatly for my coherence of my arguement I've been awake for over 36 hours, so possibly not at my best. I am just trying to present a moderate viewpoint that stands somewhere closer to reality than the tradional images of pro-choice & pro-life advocates.

"For what ever reasons it may occur a termination kills something that is alive."

So does picking an apple, eating a burger, using antibiotics, having radiotherapy, doing medical experiments on monkeys, executing criminals, and firing cruise missiles at cities full of civilians.

Sooner or later you have to draw a line - and the funny thing is, most of your "pro-lifers" (like, say, the government of the USA) have no problem being anti- the life of fruit & veg, cows, bacteria, cancer cells, rhesus monkeys, murderers or Iraqis.

What *I* can't work out is that if those lives aren't worth anything, what's so damn special about foetuses?

H.

hmmmm . . . bit of a rant there Hoo?

I know what you mean though, or I think I do. But of course an apple isn't the same as a foetus. Any more than it is similar to an orange.

We all kill to live, even vegetarians. So this is not such a shocking thing to come to terms with.

The whole foetus issue will continue to be argued - I fear - because nobody will ever come to an agreed concept as to *when* a foetus becomes 'human'. Though as Hoo and others have pointed out, all foetuses are potential humans.

There is, however, the very real issue of women who find themselves pregnant and do not feel able to go through with a pregnancy. And their lives are also important.

Anyone who calls themselves 'pro-life' yet continues to ignore the needs of these very alive women are being very hypocritical, IMHO.

az

Little Bear
"I will support the decision's that other people make, even if I believe they are making a mortally wrong one. I believe that the right action is not to condemn & criticise but to offer gentle & loving support to people both before and after they have made their decision. Instead of attacking people (verbally & physically) we should look at how we can make a positive commitment to making out communities a better place for all people. "

I think those are very wise words and the kind of understanding/support that someone would need that was making the difficult choice of abortion.

No, I think Hoo is ranting. At least not to the degree that he's not making sense. It's perfectly reasonably to point out the arbitrariness of what is considered sacrosanct life and what is disposable. Humans, for reasons that are obvious and obscure, value human life above all else. But without some deity telling us what to value and what we don't have to value, there's really no reason why, morally, that humans are special. I think it comes down to manageable morality - even Buddhists get around the fact that their bodies kill organisms all the time with the idea that being mindful of one's actions is all one can hope to do. With humans, we're not going to last very long if we don't take antibiotics, eat apples, step on ants...but with life that is specifically human, some think that we can draw a precise line between what is moral and what is not, i.e. *all* killing of human life is wrong (and Hoo, what I mean by human life is a life that is of the species human. A embryonic human is still, well, human and it is most definitely alive). However, as has been pointed out many times, there is just no easy way to preserve the rights of one human when it is at the direct expense of another's. I think many pro-lifers must think that if everyone would agree to abide by their entire system of morality, that somehow issues of competing human rights would just work themselves out or not exist at all. Things just don't work that way. However, pro-choicers are no less ridiculous in thinking that there is a feasible way to ensure that we don't kill humans after they've become sentient. My point is that nobody really has a case on the *morality* side of the issue. However, pragmatically, I think the pro-choicers win.

Yay dry social pragmatism

I meant to say he was *not* ranting, of course.

I think the issue is that the taking of human life is always going to be morally difficult. It does not matter if we are talking about euthanasia, military conflict, police lethal force, or abortion. It is not suprising that these issues should provoke arguement and discussion, because there is no black and white answer to the problems.

I agree with the statement that we cannot "draw a precise line between what is moral and what is not, i.e. *all* killing of human life is wrong" As difficult as the decision may be I believe that there may be some situations (some have been discussed earlier in this thread) where abortion may be a morally justifiable action. Since Nerd42 seems unwilling or unable to answer the question (I haven't read it at least) of what to do if given the choice of a termination or both mother and unborn child dying. If by taking one life to prevent the loss of both, this may the best possible choice of a rough lot. There is no arbitrary answer these problems, how is it that we balance the rights of the mother with those of the child. We do not live in an ideal world, and sometimes the choices we are given are not ideal either.

I do not pretend that I know the answer, nor do I expect that my religous beliefs offer me or anybody else an easy solution to these moral dilemma's. I believe that the answer may lie somewhere in the middle, finding a balance between the rights of the individuals & those of the community. I believe that it is better for society to regulate and control something that has and will continue to happen, because nobody is helped by a return (in my country at least, perhaps still common in others) of backyard abortionists.

Regulation does not have to mean an open slather of "termination on demand", because I do not believe that to be either morally good or good for the emotional & physical needs of the individual. It does however mean individuals compromising their own personal beliefs and allowing others to make choices for themselves. Whilst I may not like the choices that others make, in the end they have been given free will to make choices and to be accountable for the consequences.

hi Little Bear,

Your postings have been very clear and humane, in my opinion. Even though you admit that there is no clear 'right or wrong' issue when it comes to abortion. I also agree with you there.

I once read somewhere that the Japanese believe that the soul does not enter the foetus until it is three months old. Okay, this is only a belief, but it is just as true as anything else anyone else is trying to 'prove' here.

We cannot ever know for sure. And I think this is not actually the point. At least in determining whether women should be allowed proper medical access to abortions if they feel a personal need to do this.

Because we are talking about living women (no argument there - right? they *are* living humans) who find themselves in situations where they have to make a choice.

If one truly wants to call themself Pro-life then shouldn't they first be caring about the life in front of them - the woman? The possible human is still only a possibility. A potential human.

I don't actually believe that the US will suddenly make abortion illegal. I do remember a Canadian doctor, Henry Morgentaler, who in the 70's went to prison because abortion was still illegal there. But he refused to stop helping women in need because he knew what their other options were. Later, after the laws changed and he was let out of prison, he opened his own clinic in Toronto and offered a safe option. I used to pass by this clinic every day on my way to work and it was always surrounded by so-called pro-lifers who were thrusting photos of bloody dead foetuses in the faces of women going in for a termination.

And I used to shout at them - if you are so bloody Pro-life then why don't you get a life or your own and let other people live theirs?

This was long before I had to make my own choice to have an abortion. Which, as I have previously said, was not one I would have made if there hadn't been serious complications.

Having had to make this decision myself I can only praise people like Morgentaler who fought to make my choice possible.

az

I'm still wondering about the assertion (post 576) that men are far more likely to be pro-abortion than women. I suppose that may be the case in some parts of the world, but I'd have thought that most places, men and women had broadly similar opinions on the subject.

hi Potholer,

Most places where? Russia, for example?

I think it is very hard for us, living in the so-called Western free world, to imagine what situations women live under in other countries.

I can only imagine that in places where women are not valued properly that men would be pro-abortion as this lets them off the hook.

I've not personally met a man who is pro-abortion, per se. Rather, they are pro-choice. Agreeing that a woman has a right to decide what to do for herself. And all the men I have known in the situation of having a pregnant wife or lover, have been very supportive of the decision made (including if at times this lets the man off the hook). Hey, sometimes this also lets the woman off the hook if she is deciding on having an abortion because she just doesn't feel it is the right time for her to bring up a child.

But who are we to judge?

I can't judge anybody. Can you?

az

Out of interest Nerd, where do you stand on the death penalty?

>> Most places where? Russia, for example?

Most places where abortion is legal.
(Given the context of the original statement, it would seem that it was probably referring to 'western free world' countries', specifically those where male and female pro-abortion campaingners are hijaking feminist and left-wing groups.)


>> I can only imagine that in places where women are not valued properly that men would be pro-abortion as this lets them off the hook.

Possibly, but the other perspective is that if women *aren't* valued properly, a man may expect her to bear his child whether she wants to or not.

>> I can't judge anybody. Can you?

I'm not sure I *was* judging. I was wondering about the background to an earlier statement, and putting forward what my expectation about the actual situation was, though I'm quite prepared to alter my views in the face of new facts. If it has been proven that men are far more likely pro-abortion, those facts shouldn't be hard to get hold of.
Possibly it's one of my numerous personality failings, but I do tend to ask questions when someone says something I find surprising.

hi Potholer,

You seem to have taken me all wrong. I am in agreement with what you have posted and responded in kind, but you took it the wrong way, apparently.

I thought my posting following yours was agreeing with you and not at all opposing you. Perhaps if you go back and read it in that way you will see it totally differently.

When I asked 'can you?' judge anyone, it was meant to be rhetorical, as I was certain you and many others here could never judge another person for having to make a very difficult choice.

Sorry, I was posing very general questions. But they are the same questions.

My main concern about this topic of abortion is that women will always have the right to choose. And that having made that choice they will be offered proper medical treatment.

As for D&X, this is such a rare procedure that it must be considered an emergency, life-saving, procedure. For the woman. If anyone doubts this then they should explain why. I think such an explanation has been asked for many times. But so far - nothing.

az

Hi Azahar,
I think your example of what some Japanese people believe, shows the wide variety of ideas that exist about the consciousness of the unborn child. It would be interesting to learn how it varies between cultures, and some of the contributing factors to these beliefs.

I agree that it is unlikely we will ever know when that spark of consciousness is lit. I think we have to consider that it is possible we are wrong about when this awareness occurs, and that we may in some cases be killing something that is self-aware. If having acknowledged this the decision is still made to terminate the pregnancy, then at least it will be with a fuller understanding of what is being done. Having said this I don't think anybody in this thread is proposing or supporting the wide spread use of late term terminations (again not sure where we draw that line in the sand?).

I think the term's pro-life and pro-choice (and all the other variants) can to easily become vehicles for cheap generalisations. Whilst there are extreme elements at either side of the debate, I think it is more useful to focus on the arguments of the moderates in the middle.

I would describe myself as being "pro-life", but this does not mean that I do not care deeply for the woman (& her partner if he is involved) who are making possibly the hardest choice they will ever face. It frustrates me greatly to see people who claim to be "pro-life" harrassing and in some cases assaulting people entering clinics. To see people who profess to be Christians behave in a manner that so lacks compassion for their fellow man, saddens and angers me greatly. So much more could be achieved if this energy was directed towards creating a society that supports the decisions that woman make, be it to continue the pregnancy or to terminate it.

I am unsure what the situation is in America (or I am ashamed to say it in the rest of the world) as to the potential for change in the regulation of pregnancy terminations. In Australia each state has its own legislation (with slight variations), and they tend to be fairly liberal in the provision of services. It is also important to note that we have a well developed health and social welfare system that supports woman whatever decision they make.

One difficulty regarding the start of conscious life is that people with religious beliefs in a non-material soul are quite likely never going to agree with materialists regarding the onset of consciousness, unless they consider the human soul as something which can only inhabit a complex nervous system.

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

The first one. As I've said, whatever life that can be saved must be saved. That is not the case with most abortions (terminations, whatever) though.

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

You've got to define "the best medical and psychological attention that society can offer".

"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."



"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."

*rolls eyes and laughs at these comments*

You're saying I'm not an independent thinker?



You don't realize that after I get done debating to you guys every day, I've got to turn around and deal with family who have this silly idea to require some sort of "oath to christianity" for people to become citizens, hold public office, or even vote. I don't know if they mean they would take away the rights of anyone who does not, or what, but it's still STUPID, and I argue with them alot.

You might argue that you're more of an independent thinker than I am, but doesn't that put you on the same level with people who say they're more holy than you are? Something I've observed is that two people can look at the same data and draw entirely different conclusions. Just because someone's politics do not agree with yours does not mean they are "narrow-minded" or not independent thinkers; the opposite is the case. If I wasn't an independent thinker, then I would just agree with you in order to not make you mad. Conservatives are not brain-washed, and liberals are not evil. They just have different views.

I can't believe I almost just used the word "tolerance" in a debate.

Nerd42

"That is not the case with most abortions (terminations, whatever) though."

Looks like I'm missing a few sentences I meant to write in between....

What I'm saying is most abortions are not where the baby is going to die anyway. The book "When Does Life Begin?" (which has NOT been one of my sources until this one time now) gives an excellent statement of my case:

"
Does a Genuine Threat to the Life of the Mother Justify Abortion?

In the instance of a threat to the life of the mother, again, it is only in extremely rare cases that this situation occurs. The question is "How are such cases related to abortion?" When the mother's life is at stake, as in an ectopic pregnancy (gestation elsewhere than in the uterus) or cancerous uterus, treatment may be nessicary that indirectly kills the unborn. But how does this qualify morally or legally as an abortion? In the attempt to save the life of the mother, the child dies, the child's death was never intended. It's death was the by-product of an attempt to save the mother's life. In abortion, the intent is always to kill.
"

Nerd42