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

It sounds like there are two arguments here but no one has realised that. One is that it should be completely banned, which I don't agree with. The other is what a couple of people semi-brought up but no one went with it, which is that it should be resticted to only babies that are going to die anyway. Such as babies with growth defects of the spine and head etc. Which, although this isn't really important, I agree with.

Maybe it is already just restricted to that, I don't know, I don't live in America, but if, as someone earlier said, that healthy babies and healthy mothers are doing that would be...wrong.

With the 'males have no argument' argument, i am a female and I believe they do. Just because the woman is carrying the baby doesn't mean the man has no call to order for it. The father is responsible for his child too, perhaps not as much while the child is inside his mother, but if you look in nature the father usually is responsible for the well-being of the mother and unborn child, he is repsponsible for getting the food and protecting them. Now, in the days of supermarkets maybe we don't need the father to get the food as much, and there aren't really that many predators after pregnant and slow (not dissing pregnant ladies here, but prgnant females usually can't run or anything anywhere near as fast as they used to be) females so we don't rely on the father of the child to protect the mother. But it doesn't mean that the father, and every other male, has no where to stand. If the other females who don't even know the people putting their babies through this can argue as a woman, the males, who live on the same earth, who are part of the same world-wide community, part of the same species, can argue a case as well.

Cat-Eyes

CE

The very fact that this thread is nearly at 950 posts shows what an emotive issue it is.

Isn't that the whole issue? Emotion shouldn't interfere with politics, religion, or law but of course they do. That would make a fourth tangent to the problem, no wonder why it is unsolvable.

What about religious people who study sociology? (I am one...)

Not mutually exclusive, but answer me this- what if you were a strict fundamentalist Christian in your same field- would that colour your interpretation of that which you are learning?

It well might - but I have never *really* been a strict fundamentalist - aside from anything else, I was brought up and educated to take evolution for granted - and I could never be a creationist, which caused me to clash with people in at least one church I was in...

I must go, but isn't that really what we are talking about here? If we were all reasonable, balanced individuals wouldn't pro-choice be the logical alternative? I know that even a reasonable, balanced Christian as yourself would still have concerns, but at the end of the day, would you not consider all sides in a logical way and come to the conclussion that present scientific, moderate religious, and social indications would point towards that end?



bfn

Gee Potholer, didn't know it was a dirty word. How about "theologians vs. 'real'ogians"? Wahahaha..

I think CL Zoomer's conclusion makes some sense. Sociological realities are a little more tangible to most than the orders to be taken from a higher power.

I remember the dilemma well, and I suppose it's one reason why I ultimately left the faith - What to do when the endeavor to understand and apply the commands of the Lord becomes a spiritual nightmare because at best those commands seem unclear and at worst seem to be those of some inept guy from middle management who was stuck in charge of the entire universe. But I should stop there, lest I call the Christian God a sadist, and we get into a whole new argument .

No, sorry - my concerns about exploitation, *and* about when life begins would preclude my taking a 'pro-choice' position. It's like 'voluntary' euthanasia and the legalisation of prostitution... possible adverse consequences and unanswered questions mean that erring on the side of caution is *still* the better option. As a bill legalising prostitution has just been passed here, and the consequences to womens' health and social status remain to be seen, that's why I include that.
I believe overseas experience has shown that in an overstretched health system, and with families unable to cope with dying relatives (either emotionally or financially) legalised euthanasia can become less 'voluntary' than intended, which is why it's also relevant.

'Possible adverse consequences' are certainly worth considering, but do have to be weighed up with possible benefits, and balanced against actual (though possibly unmeasurable) current good and bad consequences of not doing anything.
Were that not the case, the 'possible consequences' argument could be equally used both against criminalising activity X where it's legal, and against decriminalising it where it isn't, and can end up as an argument of inertia rather than one of either objective practicalities or morality.

How can we divorce our emotions from politics, religon, or the law? More importantly why should we seek to do so in the first place?

The issues in question in this forum are pretty fundamental, they get down to our perception and understanding of what life is, and the balance between the rights of the individual against that of the community. Emotions are not a bad thing, they can help us to understand how we feel even if we can't always describe exactly what it is we feel. I would hate to see a world where religon, politics and the law were devoid of passion and feeling (aside from commercial law which is as dry as can be

I agree that this problem may well be unsolvable in that we will never have an absolute and universal consensus. However if both sides consider to argue & discuss the issues this can be a way of at least understanding where the other side is coming from.

hi Little Bear,

No, you are right. We cannot divorce our emotions from anything, otherwise we would no longer be human.

So this debate will continue forever it seems.

Everybody has their own opinion. Fine. But where laws are concerned, the fact that abortion is now legal in most western countries shows to me that people are beginning to see beyond their own (perhaps) narrow opinions and can accept viewpoints and situations that perhaps they will never have to imagine. Again, fine. The idea is not to get people to accept abortion on a personal basis, only to allow that people who are in need be allowed proper medical attention.

All the 'true' Christians that I know, though they would never opt to have an abortion themselves, would never stand in the way of a woman receiving proper medical care and councelling if her choice was to terminate her pregnancy.

az

I agree with not standing in the way meaning literally standing - blocking the door or something violent - but anyone is entitled to pursue any legal action through the law all they want.

Nerd42

hi Nerd42,

I am happy to hear that you would never be one of those who I have seen attempting to make another woman's suffering even more so by attacking her outside a legal abortion clinic.

Yet you would still consider blocking her way by attempting to change the laws?

az

Absolutley right (for a change) Nerd.

You keep banging on about saving lives. OK. I will accept that you are not just a small minded religious bigot if you accept my challenge.

Heres my chanlenge to you Nerd every Monday on this thread you can post one of your lame excuses for bullying women on this thread you can even regurgitate ones you have already use. Mind that they are real reasons not just dogma or the unsubstantiated opinons of others as they are void and I promise not to use liberal rhetoric or opinion.

I will post something that you can do instead of criminalising terminations that will save lives and will not include restricting a womans right to choose.

Fancy that?

Blicky,

I think Nerd is making an attempt here. To understand the situation of women who need or want abortions, even though it is against what he believes.

He (she? nerd, are you a man or a woman?) has said he/she would not ever physically stand in the way of a woman going into a clinic. I think that says a lot.

Also, Nerd has spoken about his/her background.

I think some understanding on all our parts would not go amiss right now.

az

Thanks az

(small "a" see I have been paying attention)

Got a cup game tomorrow and Ive been psyching myself up last week maybe Im getting a testosterone overload. I even had a dream about playing and a fight breaking out lastnight

Anyway point taken.

blicky,

slapped wrist - nada! que dices!

shall give you a instead.

good luck in the game tomorrow!

az

*off topic*
Nerd, regarding the Fox News quote on your home page, it *was* mainly between Ste and Adele, and not really aimed as a slur at you.