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

Abrahamic religions also have an afterlife though, and I suspect to those who believe that this is no more detached and imminent than another life on Earth is for those who believe in reincarnation.

The moral balance is an interesting point though. There is no pro-abortion moral, which is perhap appropriate. Making a moral cause out of killing always sits badly with me. Its a practical measure to reduce overall suffering, its not a good thing in itself.

Hi everyone

It happens, a young girl suddenly finds herself pregnant, disaster, how is she going to tell her parents? whats the option? what kind of future does she have if she has the child? what future does the child have? alternatively a much older and supposedly far wiser 40 year old suddenly finds herself pregnant, ah, what now? how does she tell her husband? after all they haven,t had sex for years? disaster for her whole family if the truth were out!

They were both apparantely "stupid" but passion is not stupidity, it happens, it is real, a mad moment of love and and deep affection, just at the wrong time of the month for the woman or girl concerned.

Life very definitely is a miracle, and yes, I consider a child to be a gift from God, but if that one new life is going to end up destroying many others because of it,s very being then that too is not right.

Abortion is a decision that is not taken lightly by the majority of those who feel they even have to consider such drastic action, it is a heart wrenching thing to do, and anyone who finds herself in such a situation should be treated with love, kindness and understanding, not to be told she is a "murderess" she already feels as if her heart would break even considering such a thing, but sometimes there really is no alternative.

So thankfully we have clinics with compassionate and caring people that perform such operations safely, who treat the women involved with empathy and kindness.

The alternative is too horrible to imagine, back street abortions would once again evolve, killing far more.

I would be interested to know what Mr Bush and his supporters would do if one of them found their lovers pregnant?

Jane

<>

The anti-abortionists all left, yes, and it's comments like that one above azahar, which are the reason, at least in my case. I feel that *any* argument I used had been prejudged as 'irrational', and so there didn't seem to be any point in making, or attempting to, make it. I can't speak for any other 'anti-abortionist' here (and there were a few...)

<>
That's because *we are*! There's always an alternative to induced abortion, which face it, is rarely, almost *never* necessary to save the life of the mother.

<>
That's rubbish, and you know it, Matholwch.
I met a woman in the early '90s, who had been persuaded not to have her youngest child aborted. It turned out, by the time he was 3 or 4, that he had severe disabilities, something no one had known when she had gone to have the abortion... I asked her, when she was in the throes of caring for Ben, with the help of her older daughters, if she regretted not going ahead with the abortion - she said 'no', having known Ben for, by then eight years, she would not have been without him, although he was so severely epileptic, and autistic, many people would have thought her well justified! He died when he was 10, and she still regards the time she had with him as precious.
<>
Then you haven't looked! I may be educated, but I am not middle class, far from it, and the woman Jane, whose history I gave above, was (and is) as working class as I am.
<>
Which is what you want... If I hadn't come back here, you'd have been disappointed. This has got very cosy, hadn't it? Everyone in comfortable agreement. Almost sad...

>>I would be interested to know what Mr Bush and his supporters would do if one of them found their lovers pregnant?<<

Jane Austin, I don't know about Shrub, but when you talk to people that work in abortion services you hear about the women who were (or still are!) anti-abortion who are coming in to get an abortion.


Della, I think it'd be great to have a variety of opinions here including yours. I can tell you now though that the posts you have just made make me want to leave this thread again. Here's why:


>>>
<>
The anti-abortionists all left, yes, and it's comments like that one above azahar, which are the reason, at least in my case. I feel that *any* argument I used had been prejudged as 'irrational', and so there didn't seem to be any point in making, or attempting to, make it. I can't speak for any other 'anti-abortionist' here (and there were a few...)
<<<

It's not your arguments that are the problem for me, it's how you communicate them. Unfortunately for me with the posts you made today you have just added to my perception that it is very rare to debate clearly with anti-abortionists. Your points stand on their own and I would encourage you to put them across without the antagonistic comments. Then we can debate the issues rather than getting into yet another round of low grade slagging each other off.

>>>
<>
Which is what you want... If I hadn't come back here, you'd have been disappointed. This has got very cosy, hadn't it? Everyone in comfortable agreement. Almost sad...<<<

>>That's rubbish, and you know it, Matholwch.<<

>>Then you haven't looked!<<

Personally I find these statements to be unnecessarily antagonistic. The one about being cosy and sad seems an inferred personal putdown to the people active in this conversation. I really don't see the point in doing that unless one doesn't really care about the people involved or the integrity of the conversation.

Using directed 'you' statements in the way that you have adds conflict between posters instead of just conflict between ideas. It confuses the debate because people then have to separate out the personal bites from the personal opinions and overall points.

Conversely using 'I' statements enables one to get across an idea or point without putting the other person down in someway. This is especially important in topics like this that generate strong feelings.

Instead of saying something like "that's rubbish and you know it" you could say "well I have to disagree with you on that and this is the reason why..."

I'm sorry to be so picky about your particular postings. It's just that I don't have the energy for the kind of conversation I suspect this is now going to turn into, because no doubt someone will react negatively to what you have just said (probably because of the way you said it).


Can we at least be civil to each other please? (that's addressed to everyone).

kea.

Kea, you will note that I made a point of saying "I feel, I believe", instead of making "you never, you always" statements.
It's my perception that it doesn't matter how I phrase what I say, people here would be antagonistic because of my point of view. The only way I could avoid being condemned would be to be so wishy-washy that people could interpret what I said in any way they chose.
You confirm my first point - that as my view is regarded as being irrational from the start, I don't really have much chance of being heard objectively. I've been through all this before, and if you don't have the energy (and you weren't the one being attacked before) what makes you think I have?
I find it very frustrating to being reduced to having to lurk or unsubscribe from anything even slightly controversial, for fear of being misrepresented as i have been in the past, and recently, judging by the exchange about me 3 or so dots back...

This is a site with members that tend towards rationalism (though not necessarily rational behavior) or empiricism, as different as they may be, and left political leanings. I think it's important though that people who approach ideas differently, say from a faith-based mindset or the right wing, feel free to post here. For one, it makes us more diverse, and second, how much of a challenge is it to debate with people you more or less are aligned with? Specific to this thread, in many places, particuarly in the West, being pro-choice is the norm. It's easy to forget that in many places it's not. This thread is a great example of how much work there is in trying to understand the other angles. For example, the pro-choicers have been likely to call pro-lifers irrational and illogical. But think about the biases revealed by those two adjectives - worldviews dominated by the use of reason and logic. There is a natural advantage to those sorts of people in a modern debate. However, when it comes down to it, we all rely on beliefs of some kind in order survive. This is the strong point of those with faith - they are already aware of this working in their lives. It's easy to just compartmentalize arguments into 'right' and 'wrong' ideas. It's a much better challenge, and one on par I think with the cognitive skills of the researchers assembled here, to try to understand what drives people to express their humanity in the myriad ways that they do. If nothing else, it would be nice for us all to be able to 'walk away' from this thread having gained some new insights rather than feeling like sh**.

Or we could just start throwing . Whatever.

<>

Perhaps that perception is not correct, Della? I agree with kea that the way a person phrases what they say *does* make a very big difference in how their views are accepted. Toning down how one says something does not have to mean becoming 'wishy-washy'.

Meanwhile, as an anti-abortionist, what is your take on the link that Ferrettbadger posted? Do you agree with Bush's new law?

az

Della, I can see that is a really frustrating position to be in. I can only say again that for me the problem I have with your postings today has been to do with the somewhat antagonistic tone used. I was wanting to just point out what put me off in the hope that we could get passed that and so talk about the views we have.

I don't regard your views on abortion as irrational - I'm not sure I have an opinion yet about your views as I haven't had a chance to talk with you about them. I concede that my generalisation about the debating skills of people who are anti-abortion was not helpful being expressed in such a careless way. I can see it would be difficult for people with anti-abortion views to come into this conversation after that.

I'm glad you acknowledge that someone was being attacked, and I agree that it wasn't me. I think that is why I felt I could respond from a place of relative neutrality. I was also mindful that we had been in a similar conversation some time ago that I wasn't able to continue with.

I'm in agreement with Az that toning down one's approach in a conversation doesn't equate to being wishy washy. One thing that I really like about h2 is that I have had to hone my skills of putting my view across in a less forceful way if I want people to listen to me and engage in the conversation that I am trying to have with them.

I agree with Nyssa that we are all speaking from our own belief systems. Personally I value other ways of knowing as much as or probably more than rational ones eg intuitive, experiential. I also think that the structure of the debate needs to have a level of reason or logic. The issue for me is that ideas and views are presented in such a way that we have a coherent and constructive debate. I think there are things we can all learn from differing views, yet it seems that often we don't get to that point where we can all hear each other.

>> It's a much better challenge, and one on par I think with the cognitive skills of the researchers assembled here, to try to understand what drives people to express their humanity in the myriad ways that they do.<<

I really like what Nyssa is saying here and about debating the issue without seeing things in terms of right or wrong. Perhaps it would be useful for us to acknowledge our own belief systems and how they fit into our various points of view on abortion?

<> (me)

<> (Della)

It seems to me that anti-abortionists are 'pro-their-own-beliefs' rather than 'pro-life'. I mean, define life. To many women the alternatives you imply would not be tolerable or acceptable (see Jane Austin's posting above) and would have terrible effects on the LIFE of the woman involved. I find it distasteful that people use the term 'pro-life' when they are clearly only concerned about *some* lives and believe that their version of life is the only one and true one.


az

<>


kea,

Well, it's a nice idea except the reason people are anti-abortion is *because* they think of abortion as wrong. Based on their own personal belief system.

I agree that these people have a right to their beliefs. I agree that they have the right to never have an abortion if they don't want to. I agree that they have the right to speak about their beliefs. But I don't agree that they have the right to interfere with someone else's choice in this matter.

az

Della, could you honestly say you have never been involved in a cosy thread where everyone agrees with each other before? I'll give you a clue "oh yes, certainly, Bush is evil and will kill us all". Ok its a paraphrase but you get the idea.

It happens; we're all lefty liberal scum here after all.

Bouncy,

<>

Oi! Speak fer yerself, buster!

Actually, I only remember one other anti-abortionist on this thread (the person who started it) so perhaps Della can refresh our memories.

Meanwhile, as kea suggests, we should try not to fall into the trap (as you just did!) of reacting to antagonism with more antagonism. It's very easy to do. It can even feel good. And it sometimes even makes for some very entertaining reading. But in this case, on this thread, it will only mean that Della replies from a defensive position, *only* replying to personal attacks (real or imagined) and never properly expressing her opinions on the topic.

az

>>It seems to me that anti-abortionists are 'pro-their-own-beliefs' rather than 'pro-life'. I mean, define life. To many women the alternatives you imply would not be tolerable or acceptable (see Jane Austin's posting above) and would have terrible effects on the LIFE of the woman involved. I find it distasteful that people use the term 'pro-life' when they are clearly only concerned about *some* lives and believe that their version of life is the only one and true one.<<

Azahar, pro-life people have no difficulty defining life: it simply means to be in a state of existence.

Their concern is with people being alive. Your concern is with quality of life. Why are you irrationally conflating these two distinct concepts?

May I just you remind you of the interelatedness of everything.

Children can flourish and learn many important lessons and values while caring for a disabled relative or sibling. However the majority of those I have worked with experience feelings of isolation and shame. Miss much of their schooling and absent themselves from many of the normal growing experiences. No matter how much they do or do not put into caring for relatives they each and everyone carry some guilt about what they "should have done, but didnt".

Della pointed out one example of a who might have been terminated being cared for by his siblings, now involved with that we have the structuring of education and societies lack of respect for the important job that people caring for thier families actually do.

What you and Della are I think missing out is that life for the sake of life is a mantra that can lead us into some very bad situations. What az I think is trying to say is that we should have an interest in what others do but ulitmately allow others different choices. Even if those choices include different lifestyles or perhaps to end their preganacies.

It is silly to call anti-choicers "pro-life" when you reflect that in the UK biggest killer of men under 35 is suicide. out of every three of them had children and expressed feeling trapped and apoor quality of life due the pressures of raising a family as a factor in their depression and suicidal feelings.

Do not jump to the conclusion that I think woemn should be having terminations to protect the mental health of their partners, but I think they should have that choice opne to them. This would not just be to the bennefit of their partners mental health but also their own. PND in women is an even more serious problem. Termination is not the best answer to such problems but taking away an avenue of escape will only guarantee more people will end up with problems that can blight their lives.

one love

blickybadger, life for the sake of life is the prevailing ethic: you can't kill your kids/spouse/parents/boss just because they adversely affect your quality of life. The logical conclusion of your argument is that the laws on murder are not consistent with an individual's right to choose either.

hi Mycroft,

<>

And you know this . . . how? Are you a 'pro-life' anti-abortionist yourself? Do you know many people who are? How is it you are so sure about how they define life?

<>

Their concern is not with people being alive. It is about forcing their own personal beliefs onto people who do not share them, focussing on unborn possible people who might one day be alive. My concern in this matter is not about quality of life, it is about the right to personal choice.

<>

Why are you always misinterpreting me? Rather than only debate what I have said, how about clearly expressing your own views on the topic?

az

blicky,

<>

<>

I'm finding it difficult to see where you are going with this line of thought, blicky. Are you suggesting these 'trapped men' should have been able to decide whether their partners had a termination or not? I am trying not to jump to the conclusion that this is what you meant.

az

Azahar, if you can show me that they define life any other way - by some means that doesn't involve you merely decreeing what their beliefs are - I look forward to hearing it. I know plenty of people who are considered anti-abortionists: there are quite a lot of them and it's not as if they all hide in some obscure corner of the planet. To my knowledge, not one of them has decided to burn their dictionaries because they find the definition of life included therein grossly offensive.

You quite clearly did conflate two distinct concepts. You first decided that pro-life people hadn't defined what they meant by life to your satisfaction, and then went on to use the word life to demonstrate that they're wrong to call themselves that in the first place. If you don't know what they mean how can you say they're wrong? If you do know what they mean why ask for a definition?

You put your views and they're illogical, irrational and generally poorly thought out. Once we've dealt with those issues, I'll post my views if I feel like it.