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

Mycroft,

<>

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. However, usually when a person joins in on a conversation thread it is considered proper etiquette for them to first express their own opinions on the topic being discussed. Not to just attempt to rip apart other people's postings, which I believe is sometimes called trolling. I have noticed you have done this to several of my postings on a number of other threads, without ever stating your own position on the subjects being discussed.

<>

You can do whatever you like. I feel no obligation to explain myself to you while you explain nothing of yourself. The above statement you made is quite arrogant, in my opinion.

az

I'm not sure if I am following this totally. While I agree that not all people who are anti-abortion conflict with the notion of prolife, there are definitely some. People who are violent towards doctors who perform abortions is the obvious extreme example.

The other example is that women will have abortions no matter what so if you make them illegal then women will die. I have seen anti-abortion views that say that this isn't a problem.

>>Their concern is with people being alive. Your concern is with quality of life.<<

That is quite a good way of putting it to an extent. Although I would alter it to read "Their concern is with _some_ people being alive."

I don't have a problem so much with individuals using the term prolife except where they impose their views on the choice others might make. For me there is a clear conflict between being prolife and attempting to stop a woman from having an abortion, because the life they are talking about is the foetus' life not all life. Any woman who is pregnant faces the risk of her own death if she carries the baby to term. Giving birth is inherently risky and there is no way around that. The risk may seem minimal to Westerners but it is still there nonetheless.

Also, giving birth is an incredibly profound life changing experience for women. For some it is a negative one and the life that they have after that is one of survival rather than what is considered whole. I think one can use the quantity of life vs quality of life argument but perhaps survival vs quality of life is more accurate.

We might have to define life then. The "prolife" definition from the staunch anti-abortion view seems to be something like as long as the heart is still functioning. I find it an odd perspective for what is usually a religious viewpoint, and personally I see life as being something more than that.


The conflict arises I think because the anti-abortion position separates the baby from the woman's body philosophically, whereas in reality the woman who is pregnant can't do that until the child is born (or aborted). There does seem to be an attitude from the staunch anti-abortion view that the foetus takes precedent over the woman. This, in my view, is in direct conflict with the notion of prolife.

Azahar, who considers it proper etiquette? I don't know of any such requirement in the H2G2 posting guidelines, can you point me to one?

I just don't think you can clearly explain the reasons why you think you're right, possibly because you don't really understand what you believe, and so I write about what I consider to be wrong in what you say. Call it trolling if you draw comfort from that, but I don't believe it is.

If I don't state my opinions as much as you would like, perhaps it's because I'm not as opinionated as you would wish me to be. I suspect the reason why you're so keen to seek my opinion is not because it holds any interest for you, but because you think it's easier to 'prove' yourself right by saying others are wrong, rather than by substantiating your beliefs.

As for the accusation of arrogance, you may well be right, but it's not a charge that particularly bothers me, not least because its definition tends to based on whatever's convenient for the accuser. Of course, I was merely exercising my personal choice which is something you've led me to believe you're a fan of, and wouldn't want to judge a person for. Perhaps you'd like to legislate against that kind of thing after all?

hi kea,

Yes, it is a bit confusing because even within the terms anti-abortion or pro-choice this include a wide range of opinions. Though while there *are* extremist anti-abortionists I'm not sure if the opposite exists - extremist pro-choicers? Possibly. But like all extremists, they do not representative of all.

I'm quite sure there are many pro-life people like myself and Nyssa who are also pro-choice (I hope I've got you right on that, Nyssa, if not, let me know).

<>

I agree with you on this. The fact that most of us in the West live in multi-cultural societies and do have the freedom of religious choice I cannot understand how some religions, mostly Christian though not always, can have such a strong say about what women can decide in terms of elective terminations.

For example, when did the US start embracing such stauch fundamentalist Christian values and *why* is a diverse population of more than 300 million accepting this? How many of those 300 million are Christian? Why should Christian values be upheld while other religions, personal beliefs and philosophies are not? And no, I'm not Christian bashing. But if I were an atheist or believed in reincarnation I wouldn't want some fundamentalist Christian telling me I had to live by their rules and beliefs.

Laws should be as secular as possible, in my opinion.

az

kea, I can see why you decided that the above would make a good amendment, but I'm not sure it's valid. Consider, if you will, opponents of the death penalty. They can say they they're in favour of life, while others can say they only care about _some_ life: those of condemned murderers. Of course, the accusation's only true if you can find anti-death penalty campaigners who want people to be murdered. In this case, the same applies: unless you can find people who want mothers to die during childbirth, the accusation that they only value some lives isn't true either. In short, you'd have to find people opposed to abortion even when the mother's death during childbirth is a certainty to be correct in claiming that they value some lives above others, otherwise the cold hard facts back them up: aborted pregnancies on average result in at least one death, whereas average deaths during childbirth are considerably lower.

As for the oddness of the religious viewpoint on life, you're talking about when it ends, but when it comes to when life begins - which is what matters in this debate - , it's very simple: life begins at conception, or for some, even earlier.

azahar, the distinction between secular and religious beliefs is fuzzy to say the least: just because "Thou shalt not steal" is one of the commandments doesn't mean prosecutions for theft are based on theocratic justice.

<>

I've met such a person. A medical doctor who blatantly lied to me about my condition when I was pregnant because he was an anti-abortionist. He would have seen me die before having a safe medical termination to save my life. Three other medical opinions confirmed that I was seriously at risk of dying if I continued with my pregnancy.

I chose the termination because even the best-case scenario - even if I didn't die - would have meant a baby born so premature that it probably would not have survived anyhow. I have since had to have a hysterectomy because of the state of my uterus. And still, even knowing I did the only thing I could do to save my own life, I still grieve for my lost child ten years later.

I think it is a crime that this doctor is allowed to practice medicine. I think it is a crime when people put an already living person's life at risk for a potential human life. To me, this is *not* pro-life in any way at all.

az

There have been arguements about where life begins before. Someone, I suspect Hoovooloo or Member, gave a very detailed account of why 'conception' isn't a valid answer, namely that conception itself has many different stages that are equally good candidates.

Personally I think its a pretty silly question, and a result of the value we attach to individual lives. Life doesn't begin, it continues.

To be honest I don't value life, I value minds and personalities.

Bouncy,

The main problem with this issue is that many different people have many different beliefs as to when a foetus 'becomes a human being'. The problem being that these *are* only beliefs. Opinions. None of them can actually be proven so that everyone would agree.

Hence, it comes down to a matter of choice. Of personal choice. For the woman with the foetus inside her body. I cannot see that it is anybody else's business but the woman involved. And this makes her decision a very hard one to make.

I happen to believe that life begins at conception. But I would never push this personal belief onto someone else. Just as I don't push my spiritual beliefs onto anyone else. It is a personal matter, as far as I can see. A woman should be allowed to choose.

az

Well, that gets to the heart of it, I think. For people who believe in life at conception along with some notion of duty to preserving human rights, they think it is very much their business to say what does and does not go on inside a womb. Obviously problematic, but I think most people can relate to this feeling of duty at some level, whether it's worrying about the neighbor kids being beaten or how people are suffering abroad. Where do we relinquish duty to push things on others, and where is it necessary?

<>

Inside whose womb? Their own? I agree. Inside other women's wombs? No.

I *am* one of those who believe in life at conception, and I have a very strong notion of duty for preserving human rights, but I do not think I have any right at all to dictate what another woman should do with whatever is going on inside her womb.

<>

Well, perhaps by worring more about people living outside of wombs first and foremost. All womb-dwellers are not guaranteed that they will be born for many reasons besides elective terminations.

It is a problematic situation. There are no easy answers. And there obviously isn't a 'one answer fits all' possibility. So I think it comes down to respecting a person's choice.

az

azahar, I do prefer the term pro-life, and I do not (as Matholwch implied) think that the fate of the mother doesn't matter! I do not agree with anything Bush does, to me he is a terrible hypocrite. Being pro-life is to me, as the Catholic Bishops in the USA said, a 'seamless garment' - I oppose *all* war, capital punishment, and induced abortion on demand.
However, I *do* believe that when a pregnant woman is killed, TWO people have died, not just one. That doesn't mean I think the mother is any less important than her child.

<<'pro-their-own-beliefs' rather than 'pro-life'>>
That may be so of some abortion opponents, but not of me, or of many people I know.
As for alternatives to abortion, what I was talking about, was that many if not most abortions are not actually for medical reasons! Therefore it is quite unfair to accuse pro-lifers of not caring about the lives of women, as some have.
I have had the experience of giving up a child for adoption, and I can assure you, that for me at least, that was far preferable and more bearable than *any* death I have experienced.

Oh, yes, the saddam it's Bush thread and the like - BUT not everyone there agreed, did they? By no means.

I am not 100% sure, but I did get the impression that Nyssa had (maybe) pro-life views as well, and at least one other. Maybe they can clarify? I do know that I have felt *very* aloine here!

Ahh sorry about the late reply... Tiscali bloddy outage all weekend... Dagnamit.

So anyohow this is in response to post 1258:-

Hi Az,

My personal opinions eh? hmm complicated.

I would say I have an opinion in two parts.

The first part is what I think generally about th situation; how our laws rules and society should decide on the issue. And my position on this is simply this I think women should have the right to choose. IMHO virtually no women would ever take such a decision flippantly; and therefore it is not for the state or me to interefer in this soul destroying choice. So abortion should always be an option for all women in necessary.

However what I feel on a more miocrocosmic and personal level is quite different. If I were ever less than careful with a girl and an unplanned pregnancy was the case I must confess I would be fervently opposed to the idea of abortion.

The reason for this I I personally am quite unsure of what makes me "Human" "Concious" and "Self Aware", I do not know what makes us what we are; and I also do not know *when* that develops. Consequently on a personal lever I would not want to risk... well you get the idea.

However I would always respect the wished of the person involved; these views are very personal I do not have any desire to inflict my own personal preference on anybody else.

P.S.

I think it is quite possible however that my views are influenced by the fact that my kid brother was born over three months premiture. At the time he was much the youngest child to ever survive in Plmouth and I understand that something like two weeks before he could have been aborted under the law so mayhap that clouds MY thinking a little.

Dont worry big sis, Im not turning into some macho draconian.

The impact of births on mens mental was not something I was giving as a reason for mens rights to force women into terminations.

It was an example of the very real impact that births can have on adults. I was trying to show how terminations without beings out and out good things can be a medical answer to potential medical problems, even deaths, beyond the strict physical effects upon the mother. Which anti-choicers seemto willfully ignore.

Likewise I ws not suggesting that a womans children should have the right to refuse women the right to carry to term and bring into the family children who will have disabilities. What I was arguing against by highlighting the wider impact of more children is the removal of women to choose if they should have disabled or even more children.

I personally subscribe to the social model of disability, but that does not mean that I cant sympathise with a mother who does not want to give up a disabled child for adoption or wants to terminate other pregnancies if much of the family time is taken up caring for a child who needs constant care.

Posted By: Mycroft

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.

Missing out acts of war and killing others in selfdefence in a domestic setting aswell as in the wider world as you are I will ignore it too

I'll just focus on terminations which is what the thread is meant to be about. Our preoccupation is species specific and I have no problem with this but I do get the sense that anti-choicers seem to see babies as a seperate species. The more motivated ones wave placards in the faces of women without thought for their emotional condition or the circumstances of their need for a termination. The more agressive shoot and kill doctors. Those interested in harnessing the political support claim religious motivation for their ill-considered laws. The more lazy post ill-conceived stuff here and on other message boards or cut people dead in the super market. Yet all these people have a narrow view of the subject and are willing to bully others into if not accepting their ideas atleast being controlled by them.

A major issue in termination lwas is where do we draw the line? If a woman takes the morning after pill to prevent a preganacy, the developement of these hallowed babies, does that count as murder? Potential mothers who are offered hysterectomies as a treatment for cancer are they muders if they choose not to gamble and wait for the child to be born before getting treatment for themselves.

Everyday we make politcal and economic decisions that will condemn hundreds if not thousands to premature deaths that could easily and fairly cheaply avoided? Is it because they are not cute little babies?

I can see no rationale for denying terminations which are properly carried out by trained doctors where couselling is offered to the women involved.

If this is your position too why arent you more supportive towards az instead of being so contrary and antagonistic

Logic is a tough one when it comes to laws and they dont always go together.

Why can I not buy drink on one day but do so on the following day even though it has been legal for my parents to buy and give me alcohol for the past thirteen years

Many of our loves are illogical, some of them have to be to work in a world that doesnt always work according to logic. So laws ought to be practical or theres not much point having them if they dont do what we want them to. Banning terminations will not stop them happening!

Laws ought to be about enshrining the responsibilities and rights of the individual. They also ought to take account of the practicalities of the real world. Simply put a baby pre 24 weeks cannot be an individual who better to give the power of life over death about a growing baby than the person that babies life depends on anyway?

I have to agree with Blicky in that logic doesn't always work when it comes to setting legislation and that laws have to be pragmatic.

What this issue comes down to is whether the view "all abortion is murder and should therefore be illegal" is right. If it is not right then clearly some abortions are acceptable and it is a matter of where to set the boundaries.

It is plain that these boundaries cannot be set so as to satisfy everyone who has an opinion.

There are of course religious issues bound up in this topic and many people appear to hold such strong opinions that this has become almost a religion in itself. Like many religions however, there is one basic belief and a wide range of interpretations. Within the pro-life movement there are those who would ban all abortion and others who would allow terminations to save the life of the mother. This latter interpretation varies only in degree from the current legal viewpoint; whereas the 'fundamentalist' opinion runs into the illogicality of allowing the woman, and more often than not the baby, to die for their pro-life standards.

Alongside this is the plain fact that women will find ways to have (more or less successful) abortions. Some of these women and almost all of their fetuses will die in the process. Making such 'backstreet' abortions illegal will not prevent these deaths.
(Here the law has taken a pragmatic approach, in contrast to the essentially similar drugs problem where prohibition remains the weapon of choice.)

It seems to me that the only productive line for this debate is to argue about where the boundaries should be drawn and the reasons for choosing those locations. For example, the law currently allows abortions up to 24 weeks; is this too early or too late? Does it need regular review in the light of medical advances which could ensure the survival of the fetus at this stage? If it does, why does it? What about allowable reasons for a termination: medical only, social, personal, 'consumer choice'? Or should different reasons be linked to different final dates: life threatening medical up to 30 weeks, serious medical up to 24 weeks, personal/social up to ten weeks perhaps?

F