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

Erm let me see.

I think its a good thing that this thread is here, although describing it as a debate isn't entirely accurate in my opinion. I would like to see some anti-abortionists with original or at least reasoned arguements. Unlikely on this site, because the anti-abortionist position is a rare one in even the most religious people in the UK.

I think anyone has the right not to get involved in this, and that doesn't necessarily have to do with cowardice. Bravery can be knowing when no-one wants or needs to hear your opinion. This topic in particular needs sensitivity more than logic, and this is also why I feel that random attack on Adele (or Della? I never did see the result of all that...) was foolish.

Debate is not meant as an opportunity to appear superior, and being prepared to express your views unmoderated by tact is a virtue in some cases, but not this one.

hi Bouncy,

Have you ever spoken to an anti-aborionist who had a 'reasoned argument'?

I never have.

Meanwhile, you're right. This isn't a debate as such since all the anti-abortionists left long ago. It was just re-started by FB to show the recent trend in the US to attempt banning all safe medical terminations.

az

I don't think that there have to be anti-abortionists here to have a debate. It just means the viewpoints won't be so extremely polar. I think it is possible to debate about abortion amongst the people on h2 as we have different experiences and perspectives even amongst those if us that are pro-choice.

For instance if we are all currently pro-choice then we could debate the circumstances in which abortion should be restricted. Do we support abortion on demand, or should there be limits on who and why?


I do have to agree that anti-abortionists with a reasoned argument are pretty few and far between though.

I have seen women speaking from a perspective of being both pro-choice and pro-life, which is interesting.


And I'd like to point out that without feminists we wouldn't be having this conversation, or not in its current form, as abortion would be illegal.

Sorry, Az..what I meant was the article's discussion of higher penalties possibly being imposed when a woman is assaulted when pregnant. Because obviously a non-pregnant woman isn't worth the full extent of retribution allowed by law. Or something. But then, that's another viability ball of worms..at what point is a fetus murderable? And what to do about the special kind of violence that some men feel they need to level against their pregnant significant others, particularly to their uterus region? Still..I don't think that the law should be enforced emotionally, i.e., a person getting a much stiffer punishment because it made everyone so upset that a was killed in the fray. If we're really that appalled, then we need to reverse abortion laws. Why do we have to be so inconsistent?

hi kea,

<>

Well, that's me, basically. Pro-life for myself, pro-choice for everyone else. It irks when anti-abortionists call themselves 'pro-life'.

I support terminations upon request, within the accepted time limit (is it twelve weeks? I can't remember). I think to place any other limits on it would infringe on a woman's right to choose.


hi Nyss,

Sorry, I misread you the first time so I didn't understand what you meant. <> Well, that is really what is going on here, isn't it? Bush obviously trying to present all foetuses as human beings with rights. If this law is passed it will then automatically become 'murder' to terminate a pregnancy.

az

Ahh. Wondered if this thread would come back to life. Well done Ferrett bro.

This recent law seems to be designed to block terminations in that if a particular judge applies it loosely enough a termination could be seen as an assault on a human being. An elective termination would be outlawed because the growth of the baby was not clearly and directly threatening the life of the mother. It could conceivable render only terminations in the most dire of medical emergencies still to be legal.

It's timing also smacks of the Republicans being cynical in trying to tug at peoples heart strings "Vote for us the other lot are happy for people to murder babies, we are the only ones who will protect innocent little children". This is not quite as narrowly a political aspect as it first seems. It is infact the very crux of the matter ie. what will our individual morals and ethical considerations of society when creating laws allow others to do with thier bodies.

We do need to draw a line. I agree with 28 weeks not for any medical reason but because it does represent a point at which people have previously agreed. For the pro-choice minded it gives some thinking time and time to act for the pregnant woman and doctors. It also respects the deeply held feelings of the pro-life minded that people are not murdering babies. Pragmatically it does draw a line which saves much head scratching and heartwrining over defining a cut off line for developemnet of "life" which be different for each pregnancy.

In a similar way the bill prohibiting D&X is open to (il)liberal interpretation.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3212348.stm What strikes me most is this comment: "We believe that this bill is constitutionally sound and obviously very, very necessary in terms of who we are as a society," Republican Senator Rick Santorum. Its worrying if a man in power believes such things are necessary it is perhaps more worrying if such comments and legislation are merely meant to appeal to voters like this one:
"Believe what you will; when it comes down to it, any form of abortion is murder. God decided to grant a miracle - a child, to that particular woman and to abort that miracle is to say you know better than He does, which is stupid and imbecilic. Any child is a gift, whether they have abnormalities or are perfectly healthy. If you don't want to the child, then give it up for adoption; at least then the child still lives. Girls and women should think before they have sex and need to be ready for the consequences. There should not be a choice - if women are stupid enough to get pregnant before they are married, then they obviously should not be trusted to make the right decision once they conceive. If it was a 'mistake,' so be it and live with it, don't make it worse. I believe the ban on partial abortion is making a great advancement for women and their well-being."
Kristen, USA

How far will the goal posts have to be moved to please people like Kirsten, will people have to be married before they conceive? Will masturbation be made illegal? If a fertilitiy clinic attempts to fertise several eggs in the hope that one actully does will the mother have to carry everyone of them to term in one preganancy or sucessively as not doing so would be murdering potentila lives? What about triplets where carrying all three to term could threaten their babies' lives and the mothers?

Abortion is not strictly a feminist issue. I will never carry a child and I still care pationately about this, even if I did not have a single female relative or friend, I still would its about a humans rights to decide sensibly and ethically. After all terminations are not even denied in the bible. It is simply a rallying call for halfwitted misguided christians who think they are serving god by interfering with other peoples moral choices. The church and christian right know this but to prtray liberals and women who choose terminations as nothing more than baby murders is a powerful weapon in their campign to wipe away all other thought and modes of lifestyle.

one love

where did I get 28 weeks from?

hi blicky,

Yes, where *did* you get 28 weeks from? That Kristin sounds very much like JtP, doncha think? Aaaargh, just reading that sort of arrogant ignorance makes my blood boil.

az

I don't know, Blicky. Many babies survive right down to 23 weeks, so that number makes me nervous.

It just still boggles my mind that christians can be so pick-and-choosy about pro-lifism. Bush - champion to all would-be humans. Just watch out should you make it to term and commit a crime in Texas

<>

No, only American humans. He has no problem blowing up babies in other countries.

az

Fair enough, though I thought my post dripped with enough sarcasm for that to go without saying .

It should have been 24 weeks, which is the time in the UK after which special dispensation on medical grounds must be sought.

Like I say I know that no two pregnancies are the same some babies may survive at 23 weeks and even sooner if advances in medicine are anything to go buy, buut we do need a universally agreed limit that can be used across the board to save people debatting ever single case when time may be of the essence.

I suppose that If medicine goes far enough we may be able to at some point to offer women completely ex-utero pregnacies.

The religious right would love that. "Dont kill the babay let us grow it in a jar". This and in a sense similar adoption strategies miss one major point emotional attachemnt and worry.

It may seem at odds with the idea of terminating the preganacy but women often suffer depression when they have to be sperated from their child, even if they did not want to be a mother. "You dont miss what you never (literally) had". More specifically there is greater risk of deeper and longer lasting depression in women who carry to term ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/abortion_email.shtml ).

one love

Hi Az

>>I support terminations upon request, within the accepted time limit (is it twelve weeks? I can't remember). I think to place any other limits on it would infringe on a woman's right to choose. <<

The law in NZ technically doesn't allow abortion on request, although in practice in most places it's possible. Here there has to be a medical reason or mental health reason. The woman has to see 2 certifying consultants and also I think a counsellor. This is for first trimester abortions (up to 12 weeks). I assume that for 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions it's the same with the consultants being more strict.

The main problems for women here are that in some areas the certifying consultants are anti-abortion, so that women have to travel to another area and pretend that they live there in order to get an abortion. Not the easiest option for some women who are short on finances or childcare or needing secrecy.


hey Blicky

>>Abortion is not strictly a feminist issue.<<

I'm not sure if that was a response to my comment. What I was referring to was the history of abortion and reproductive rights and the crucial role that feminists have played in ensuring the current protection of those rights. I agree that reproductive freedom is a human right (which is also what feminists would say)


Nyssa, the number of weeks argument makes me nervous too. Also athough preterm babies are being made to survive at younger and younger ages there are huge ethical issues involved in that, including the quality of life those children will have (many have long term health problems I think). There is a link between the save lives at all costs ethic and the anti-abortion one.


I think the other issue about abortion on request is that abortion requires other people's involvement. If I want to abort a 12 week foetus then I have to ask medical people to do this for me. Because I think that abortion is about killing the foetus, I do believe that there needs to be care in the decision that is different than if I was able to do the abortion myself.

Here's a site I came across a while back about women who have no regrets about having had an abortion:

http://imnotsorry.net/whythis.htm

I was very interested to read the website and women's stories, particularly in light of the huge amount of information in the public domain about how bad abortion is.

I know that some women have traumatic abortion experiences, and suffer for a long time afterwards. There are also women for whom the choice is straight forward and who have no problems afterwards. And the women in between who have a difficult time and find ways of healing from this.

I know an abortion counsellor who had to come to terms with the fact that a significant number of clients saw having an abortion as a proceedure with no ethical dilemma involved.

~~~

Here's a link to access the actual bill passed by the US senate this week. Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type Unborn into the phrase searcher.

The bill is known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Oh dear! So anyone who 'intentionally kills an unborn child' will be treated as having killed a human being? Well, so far this doesn't seem to include abortions. But for how long?


az

I just think it's interesting how various cultures approach the human death thing and what is or is not worthy of contention. I mean, at the moment, it would never enter congressional debate whether or not parents should be able to leave their 2-year-olds out for the animals to devour or if jealous spouses should be allowed to kill lovers. What we focus on currently are things like euthanasia and abortion rights, capital punishment and war. The arbitrariness is hard for me to ignore. I suppose it makes sense, since either extreme of prohibition or permissiveness just wouldn't work. Seems humans always need *some* means by which we can kill our own .

hi Nyss,

In terms of elective terminations I have already stated that for myself, and only for myself, I am (for want of a better word) pro-life. Yet I am pro-choice for other women. The arbitrariness you mention is for me not so much arbitrariness as simply not knowing *for sure*. Many people have many different beliefs about when a potential human being actually becomes a human being.

For me, this is pretty much from the moment of conception. My personal take. My personal belief. But you see, it is *only* my belief. And only *my* belief. And as nobody can prove this is true or not, it can only ever be an opinion.

Meanwhile, I cannot judge or criticise women who choose to have terminations for *whatever* reason. Because it is not happening to me and my body. And I am not living their lives. What if they completely believe that a foetus does not become a human until a certain stage of its growth, or even until it is actually born? Why should these beliefs be treated with any less respect than my own?

This is why I so strongly support safe medical terminations upon request. It's a very hard decision for most women to have to make. I feel they should be allowed to do so with the most support and options possible.

I do agree that how we deal with death in general is probably not very healthy. A friend of mine whose aged father is in a nursing home has recently signed a 'do not resuscitate' form. Surely this is quite close to euthanasia. So if her father goes into cardiac arrest or has any other serious life-threatening problem, the medical staff will not attempt to save his life.

Anyhow, not sure where I am going with this. Bit of a ramble.

az

Oh well, time to get my hands dirty I guess .

Instead of rerunning all the old arguments time and again why not try to look at the root causes of these arguments and then reapproach the whole issue from an original angle?

Why is the death of a foetus considered murder by so many people in western society? Well there are a few possible reasons:

1. In our affluent society children rarely starve to death in front of their impoverished parents' eyes. Every baby born has an excellent chance of making it to adulthood.
2. The domination of the Abrahamic moral philosophy leads to a belief in one-life only for each soul. Thus the point at which a soul invests a body is critical, for after that point you deny that person all their future life by their premature death.
3. There is no balance to the justice of abortion. In the anti-abortionists eyes only the foetus has the right to a life. They would rather a mother dies in childbirth, or has her life burdened by an unwanted child (not a happy position for the child either).

As an aside, I have never met a poor anti-abortionist protesting outside a clinic. They are, to a man or woman, the educated middle-class.

What if the Abrahamic religions are wrong and we in fact live a succession of lives? More people on this earth believe that, than there are 'one-lifers'. Then when a foetus doesn't make it for whatever reason the spirit departs and tries again.

There are those who say abortion is unnatural. To them I recommend they read up on rabbits and their kin. A rabbit doe can and does reabsorb the foetuses it carries if the conditions outside are unsuitable for a safe life.

Well I have sown the wind and await the whirlwind.....

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Well, indeed. It's the lack of ethical absolutes that makes me quite so cynical I think. People think things are right or wrong. So what. Things have changed and will change, and as far as I can tell there is no morally 'evolved' place to which we can aspire. Morals serve various purposes, depending on need, whims of those in powers, etc. Personally, I'm also like you. Abortion isn't for me, simply because I'm not much for killing a human, and I really don't see how abortion is that much different. Since I don't have any moral compass, I figure it would do for me to err on the side of life, which is more reversible than death. Hence, why I don't squash spiders, eat chicken, or support the death penalty or war. But those are my personal quirks. I come from the odd position of at the core not believing in right or wrong, so it's hard to condemn actions as such. But it's easy enough to note inconsistency, and I find studying the whiches, whys, and hows, of humans picking their battles really interesting.

Nice points Math.., though I'm not sure it's fair to claim that the average pro-lifer values the fetus over the mother. But you're right I think about the pervasive judeo-christian ethic, and how people don't bother to wonder if perhaps there are other ways of philosophically engaging issues. Context, people.

Sorry if we're regurgitating old arguments. My memory is substandard.