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

*Wishes he could be bothered*

marking

cool, this converstion's going again. it's a really great discussion, i just wish i had something vaguely insightful to add. oh wel ...

Reading from the article that az linked to it appears to me that the tactics of the pro-lifers are somewhat similar to the tactics of the groups campaigning for better animal rights in the UK.

The stated aim of the animal libbers is to end all human wrought animal suffering. They know they wont get far saying "right Mrs Miggins we've come to liberrate Joey as keeping a budgie in that little cage is unnecessarily cruel". So they look for campaigns where emotive language can be used more easily and effectively to support their ends, they look for issues that they believe will be easy to knock over one at a time. They would like to acheive their aims tomorrow but know that steady errosion of the publics views is a more sensible approach. So we see pictures of beagles suffering in cages, rabbits with weeping eyes and foxes being pointlessly terrorized and killed by twits in red jackets. Instead of an all out assault telling us we should all stop wearing leather and get down to the vegan shop quick smart.

In a similar way Pro-lifers are using emotive language "Is that a human hand or is that property", they are picking on single issues where the publics support for the right to choose is at its weakest. Make no mistake that the end they are working towards is a ban on all legal terminations. Do not even get fooled by the medical exceptions that people often speak about. If a Pro-life Doctor can get the backing of a Pro-life legal system that doctor could block the termination of a preganancy where any number of other doctors might say its insane to continue with the pregnancy.

Hopefully those who can see that this legislation is not only wrong in its treatment of the issue of D&X termination but is also an attempt by prolifers to errode womens right to choice will get it overturned or ruled out.

hi Blicky,

I found it interesting to read in that article that Clinton had twice refused to sign this document banning D&X procedures because he felt the wording of it was too broad and could hinder women seeking terminations in general. But of course Bush cannot wait to get back from his present trip abroad and sign the thing.

I agree with you that anti-abortionists (most of them are NOT in any way Pro-life) often use emotive language and, as you said with the animal libbers, single put issues that most people would feel appalled about.

<>

Yes, which was apparently also Clinton's viewpoint, which is why he would not sign to ban D&X procedures. I do agree that D&X should only be done in the most extreme and serious situations where the life of the mother is at risk. It *is* a terrible procedure, but if the foetus is so badly deformed that it has no hope of survival and if by attempting to give birth to it might kill the mother, then a choice of the 'lesser of two evils' must be made in favour of the mother. To ban this option for women seems very inhumane and cruel to me.

Re: animal libbers, you said:

<>

In fact, the most horrific animal testing is done by pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies. So becoming vegan and not wearing leather would not actually stop this at all, though it might cut down on factory farming of animals, which is also very cruel.

az

sorry, that should have read 'single out issues', not 'single put issues'.

az

I've just been wondering how many of those US Senators are men. Probably most of them. And I wonder how many of them are Christian, and whether they are able to do their jobs properly and not allow personal religious beliefs to sway their decisions, since they are deciding on laws for a vast population, many of whom are not Christian.

Now, I am neither man-bashing nor Christian-bashing. But if someone is in a position to decide on laws that will affect approximately half of the US population (and even more, as men are obviously also affected by the availability of safe abortions) then *if* they allow their personal beliefs to sway them - they are not doing their job. Bush is obviously such a fundamentalist weirdo that it comes as no surprise he wants to put this law through to ban all D&X procedures. I wonder how differently he would feel if one of his family needed this done.

Make no mistake. He would have some doctor on his payroll who could do this for someone he personally cared about, without anybody ever hearing about it.

Oh, have I just said that Bush and his cronies are a bunch of self-serving hypocrites?

I guess I did.

az

>>But if someone is in a position to decide on laws that will affect approximately half of the US population (and even more, as men are obviously also affected by the availability of safe abortions)<<
It is my perception that men are much more in favour of abortion that women are. Many men see it in the abstract, the personhood (or not) of the 'foetus' doesn't matter to them. But when they're personally involved, well, it's 'my right to choose all the way'!
Sure Bush and co., are self serving hypocrites. They started a war for oil! Why didn't you care about that? (if you did I apologise, but it's ironic that there are anti-war, animal rights people who don't give a fig about unborn babies.) There are many other people who didn't care about Bush killing innocent civilians, but this anti-abortion bill gets them stirred up. Why?

Della,

<>

There are many people who care very much about both, myself included.

az

'There are many other people who didn't care about Bush killing innocent civilians, but this anti-abortion bill gets them stirred up. Why?'

Because it erodes their constitutional rights as established by Roe vs Wade in the Supreme Court. Women fought long and hard for decades for these rights and they should not be given up lightly. When people generally have rights taken away from them they tend to get mad.

Ste

I'm glad to hear you're concerned about the war-mongering, azahar. To me, that's the primary reason to loathe Bush!

Della,

I can't imagine why you assumed I was not concerned.


hi Ste,

Also, when people have their rights taken away and do not fight back it opens the door for disreputable governments to begin removing more and more rights.

az

it's ironic that there are anti-war, animal rights people who don't give a fig about unborn babies.

Is the above situation ironic or something that you simply assume and infact totally false, Della?

Who are these people who dont give a fig about unborn babies. Is it az, if you had read her comments in the backlog you would know that its not her. I also have raised concerns about unborn babies, feoti call them what you will, being affected by pregnant women drinking alcohol, eating contaminated foods and smoking etc...Infact I and many others (even though I cant remember an exception I want say all) on this thread agree with the opinion of the medical professionals who say there is a time after which elective terminations should not be allowed in the interest of the feotus, despite the fact that we are pro-choice.

Do not go down the road of thinking that is only your side that "cares" simply because pro-lifers care about different things AS WELL AS the things you care about does not mean we do not care.

az,
Surely if they make their beliefs known at the time of being elected , it is acceptable for them to make judgements and decisions based upon those beliefs. They are the people's elected representative, and part of that is voting for or against legislation. In making these decisions should they be expected to put aside their own personal beliefs and make decisions based on what the perceived "majority" want. In a representative democracy I believe we elect an official to make the decisions he thinks are best for the people and the country. If the electorate does not like these decisions they have the opportunity to vote for somebody else at the next election. In Australia our head of state (Governor-General) can disolve both houses of the Federal Government and call fresh elections. This has only happened only once (under highly controversial circumstances) but remains an important safe gaurd.

Hope I haven't gotten off the track to much but I believe that safe and stable democracy is not to be found in poll driven decision making by the government of the day.

On what would you have a person base his decisions, if you think it's wrong for him to base his decisions on what he believes to be true?

If you consider that their job requires them not to let their beliefs influence their decisions, then it seems what you're really saying is that their job is not to make decisions at all, but to do whatever they're told. If this is the case, why have senators at all? Why not just have everything determined by public votes?

I'm not sure what the ideals are of the American government - perhaps Senators ARE supposed to just do whatever the majority tells them. But if they are expected to make actual decisions, you can't expect them to ignore their beliefs on the matter. They have to consider what they believe is true when they make a decision. That's what a decision is.

on the senators and religion thing: i think the main point is not to prevent them from having their own beliefs, but that they need to be able to look at all sides of an issue, ie, step outside their beliefs, and try to make a decision that best serves those they represent. it's fine if tey're religious, so long as they don't impose it on me by their policies. we need senators because, if all issues were decided by an open vote, all citizens would be taking on an extra part time job. as it is, very few americans even bother to vote. so, so few people would bother to vote on most issues that everyone else would complain about only a couple people running the country. on the bright side, i get to vote for the next election!

hi chickadee,

Well said. Religion is a personal matter. And while one cannot leave all of their beliefs at home when they go to work, they should (especially if they are in a public service) be able to make objective decisions that best serve the public.

I'm not very familiar with American politics but I think Senators are appointed by the government in office (correct me if I'm wrong!). And in the case of the Bush administration, it would seem that the majority of the public did *not* vote for him, that it was his famous manipulating of the Florida recounts that changed the fate of the US.

az

Okay,

Usually I'm happy just reading along with this thread and not jumping in, but here's a little primer on American politics.
Senators are not appointed by the President or his administration.
They are elected for six year terms by the American public with two senators for each state (50 states=100 members of the U.S. Senate).
The House of Representatives (whose members are refered to as representatives or, simply, congressmen) is also made up of officials elected by the U.S. populace. The size of the House is set at 435 representatives with the seats divied up among the states by population, with the most populace state (California, I believe) holding the most seats. Each representatives is elected to a two-year term.

As for Presidential elections, I'd have to get into the electoral college, and I don't want to touch that with a ten-foot cattle prod.

Carry on

hi Shotgun,

Thanks for the primer!



az