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

How odd that anyone who lives outside of the areas covered by landline phones or cellular communications and who cant afford sattelite phones are are'nt considered real people by you.

Well done for nearly getting the Bill Hicks quote right though.

How odd that anyone who lives outside of the areas covered by landline phones or cellular communications and who cant afford sattelite phones are'nt considered real people by you.

Well done for nearly getting the Bill Hicks quote right though.

>>A 'baby' in a tube? It is a foetus, Della.<<
Which is a matter of argument azahar. Many 'pro-choice' people would use the term 'fetus' about a 39 week old baby they intended to kill - oops, abort. They say that only 'wanted pregnancies' result in babies. What are the rest I wonder - invertebrates? Rats?
(Great frustration was felt in the generation of this post...)

Embryo, is when the major organ systems are laid down, at 3 months after implantation.

Featus, from three months until birth

New born babies are referred to as neonates

These are technical terms Della.

No sh*t, Sherlock!
I know that. I am not as stupid as many here would like to believe we pro-lifers are. My point was meant to be about the misuse of these terms, and my perception that some 'pro-choicers' would rather die than use term baby. (I wonder if some have even *seen* a baby in the last 20 years?...)

Della,

I have never implied or suggested that you are stupid. Because I know you are not stupid. I also don't think anyone else on this thread thinks you are stupid But of course I cannot speak for others.

However, I do very seriously disagree with your anti-abortion stance - the one whereby you believe that your own personal beliefs should be able to affect another person's life and life choices.

>>and my perception that some 'pro-choicers' would rather die than use term baby. (I wonder if some have even *seen* a baby in the last 20 years?...) <<

A baby is something you hold in your arms. I say this although I did fall in love with what I thought of as 'my baby' when I was pregnant. Before I had to terminate. Of course it was not yet a baby, but the concept of a hopefully soon to be baby. In my case my hopes were not able to be realized.

I can't now remember who it was on this thread - I think it was Nerd - who *actually* had the supreme insensitivity to say to me that because I was not at death's door I had *no right* to terminate my pregnancy. Della, this is the sort of thing I am so against. People trying to push their beliefs onto others. I was not at death's door. But it was a very high-risk pregnancy and three different doctors told me a termination was my best option. I was very afraid. AND in love with my 'baby'. You think I made this decision lightly? You think I . . . oh never mind, I've said it all here before.

Thing is Della, we are similar in that we would not ever want to personally have an abortion as we feel this would be somehow wrong for us. But other than that we seem to totally differ. Because you think your views should extend to others. I know I have no right to impose my views onto others, if my views might affect their personal choices.

Time for bed. Buenas noches . . .

azzzzzzzzz

I suppose the difference is that (a) as you probably well know, but almost certainly won't acknowledge, the vast majority of women who have abortions each year (17,000 in New Zealand - we have good reason to remember that number for ever, thanks Hoo...)have abortions not because they have 'high risk pregnancies', or their lives at stake but because of convenience (often the boyfriend's not their own)or as a means of contraception.
(b) I want to see this (abortion for convencience) ended, because I have had and held babies, I have given birth to them and *know* they're alive before they're born. I theorise that's why most 'pro-choice' people are women without children, and most pro-abortion people are men. (See, if do know there's a difference.)
BTW, if you don't want me to think you think I am stupid, don't lay the patronage on so thick!

hi Della,

I have no problem with women seeking safe terminations outside of 'high risk pregnancy' situations. I believe it should be their right to choose, though I would personally choose differently for myself.

Also, no one here has ever said that a foetus is not alive before it is born.

<>

That sounds like a blatant generalization to me. Can you back it up with facts?

<>

Della, I can hardly do something less if I am not doing it in the first place.



Okay, I came across this article this morning in the Guardian and I think it is related to some of the issues that have been raised here.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1077219,00.html


az

Della this is not a single issue debate. OK you stop legal terminations. Good for you!

What happens to the many underage girls forced by their mothers (it really isnt just men who do that) to have terminations?

What happens to the children who are adopted into families where their is no blood bond?

What happens to the women who for whatever reason are unable to cope with the child they have given birth to but have to spend everyday worrying hopelessly about that child that they had to have adopted?

I do think you are being stupid because even though you arent stupid. You are diliberatley ignoring other issues that are linked to this subject, you arent stupid but you are a bully because merely by the negative language you insist on using you are trying to restrict other peoples freedoms.

Whilst I am pro choice on these matters, I do have to disagree with you about adoption. It's my only hope of parenthood, other than my partner using AID by donor, and I personally think it's the least selfish option - though I wouldn't be the sort to only want to adopt nice little babies.

Many adopted children do have happy families, or at least the ones that I know of.

Some dont though. Some children have even been forcibly expatriated and given to families who force them into child labour.

Even without a ban on terminations there are children who are still waiting for people to adopt them. I too know of many adoptions where there are very positive outcomes. What I do not do though is view adotption with rose tinted spectacles and think that it is a good alternative to terminations in EVERY case, though it can suit some better.

I know that, and I certainly don't think that adoption is a good thing, it shouldn't be seen as an alturnative to abortion just as an alturnative to a child being in a childrens home.

But their are many children raised by families who are not theirs biologically who do very well.

A feminist friend sent me an alert about Terri Schiavo back in about August. The issue is, that the husband is supposed to have beaten her, that's how she sustained the injuries in the first place. That's one reason why her parents (not the courts) want her kept alive. If you go to *their* site, they give evidence about (a) the husband's record of violence and (b) their contention that she *is* aware. The impression I get of the husband is that he is manipulative sort, presenting the whole case as a 'death with dignity' fight, when her family insist she doesn't want to die at all!
It's not as clear as you might believe from hubby's lawyers.
Aside from that, I am not commenting, I don't want to get flamed as Adele did!

Thanks a lot, Blickybadger, you are at least consistent.Consistently unpleasant, that is...
I know a lot more about adoption than you ever will, but I'm not going to expose myself to your assumptions by giving details.

hi Della,

The first time I heard about the case of Terri S. was this morning. And it was in a national newspaper, not from the webpage of either parties.

az

My friend Diana in the UK emailed me a link to Terri's parents web page back in August. I'd put it here if I still had it. *Then* after that, one of the big Bushie websites got a hold of it and made a Republican meal out of it, but even before that, I thought of her husband as a cunning manipulative little skunk...Now it's all got confused. To oppose Bush (which I want to do at all times) means backing a snivelling wife beating opportunist, which I do not want to do! Incidentally, the Catholic church has never required people who really are dying, to be kept alive - but Terri's parents point is that she is *not* dying - she's aware, but as hubby has kept them from the resthome he moved her to when the $$$ he won by suing her doctors started to run low, they haven't had the chance to see her until the Dubya-ites got involved.
That hubby won $$millions in compensation for her condition is pretty darn irnoic is, as her parents maintain, her condition was *really* caused by his attempt to kill her... The money was supposed to be for her care and her rehab. He moved to a warehouse type facility, and has spent the money on his new live-in and her children. Why am I not surprised?

"pretty darn ironic if"..

Della,

Perhaps the newspaper article was somewhat less biased that what you would have read on the parent's website. I found the article tried to show both sides of the situation.

It also says that all medical opinion states that she is *not* aware. This is a very difficult call.

az

*Checks backlog*
Oh my God! Della and az, not at eachothers' throats!