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

Of course this thread getting resurected has made me wonder what happened to Nerd 42... I have not been annoyed by him for ages...

Fathom,

<>

That sounds like a very reasonable solution, though I'm not sure if it isn't mostly like that now already. I think the 'personal/social' choice (without a serious medical reason) is up to 12 weeks but I don't know about the others.

az

Ferrettbadger,

Apparently the questions here were too much for Nerd and so he is being annoying elsewhere.

az

Hi Della

At last someone willing to bat for the other side! Good for you Della, let's have at it!

What you propose is a very Christian viewpoint, as are the majority of the pro-life protestors I have had the privilege of chatting with. Perhaps we should contrast this extreme respect for life with Leviticus and Judges, where the death penalty for all sorts of misdemeanours is the general rule.

I remember one long-drawn out argument with a Methodist Minister on a protest line outside a Marie Stopes clinic. I asked him if he believed in stoning for an adulterous woman. He said yes, no hesitation, yes. OK I said, what if the woman was pregnant as a result of that adulterous relationship? Still death by stoning he said. But what of the child I said? The argument ended there as the protestors drove me off claiming I was trying to trick the "dear old gentleman" (the same one who no doubt had some stones ready in his pockets). My final retort as they heckled me made the Minister visibly blanch - what if she was fourteen and had been groomed by a middle-aged and married minister? I am wicked I know but I couldn't help myself....

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

Really? I actually made a study of this for my degree in Social Psychology and I can assure you it is only too real. A number of Southern Baptists were tried for allowing their wives and daughters to die. Unfortunately despite compelling evidence the juries in their small towns in Tennessee and Arkansas wouldn't convict them.

Anyone can cite individual stories such as you have. The reality though is that hundreds of thousands of women are denied abortion, even for life-threatening conditions, every year. This is particularly the case in third world countries that are dominated by Catholic or Anglican religious dogma. Many of these women die or are forced to carry on having children until their health is ruined. It doesn't matter to the priests and nuns that often these children are born to suffer from disabilities that their societies and familes can't cope with, or into a situation where a short life before death by disease or malnutrition. After all their souls are saved!!!!

I haven't looked huh? I have spent plenty of time trying to reason with these fanatics. I have been berated by them, cursed by them, threatened by them and even assaulted by them. I didn't hear any working class voices there I can assure you.

I don't know about the comfy agreement though I've only just arrived. Perhaps you and I can re-ignite meaningful debate here?

I look forward to your next reply.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

I wonder why medical abortions after a date of viability are allowed, frankly. Some argue that somehow the act of delivering a live baby is more traumatic than having to kill it in the womb and deliver it dead. I think the sort of disassociation necessary to deal with some of the dilemmas we face today is perhaps more unhealthy than we suspect. Of course, I also tend to be of the opinion that once a fetus has pain receptors, it should be killed in such a way that allows for it to have anesthesia. But then, that may imply more personhood than we would like. If it's not done in the womb, the hospital records would look really odd, and the 'parents' would be responsible for medical bills to a child that should have never 'existed.' Hmmmner. In any case, *if* there is a line to be drawn, I just don't see how it could be drawn at any date past that which a baby could survive outside the womb (as ambiguous as that is). Otherwise, what really then is the difference between a late late term abortion and my leaving a colicky 3-month-old out in the cold? For some reason, most of us are less ok with the latter, and I find that really interesting.

Nyss,

It's always been my understanding that the majority of late term terminations are only done for serious medical problems and that the majority of terminations in clinics are done before a 12 weeks.

The D&X procedure does sound horrific but again I thought this was only done when giving birth naturally would put the woman's life in danger.

Shall have to go and google some info.

az

Hard to say. I've heard some of those serious medical problems as being fuzzy psychological ones. Not to downplay them, but I fail to see how allowing the baby a chance to survive will be more traumatic than dilating the cervix and killing it, even if a C-section is required. I mean, leaving the ethics out of it, what would be more horrifying for a woman to experience? I'm sure it varies, and it just stinks that for some viable babies, the only thing between them and their own life is a bit of abdominal tissue.

>> "I mean, leaving the ethics out of it, what would be more horrifying for a woman to experience? I'm sure it varies..."

Which seems a reasonable argument in favour of choice.

While I can see that considering a point in time with *some* chance of external viability as one position to take on date-setting, it isn't the only one. Even with technological advances, for the time being, the prospects for healthy life seem likely to diminish the earlier the date of removal from a woman's body.

To make a significant imapact on abortion figures, it seems there would have to be a large number of presumably expensive incubators. There would likely be large bills to be paid, whether by a possibly reluctant individual, some adoption organisation, or a state with other strong demands on their resources in child or adult healthcare. When it comes to a choice between allocating resources to an existing sentient human being, and a potential one, it's a different moral position - not abortion or not, but where to best spend the money.

In the case of fetuses likely to undergo late abortions (and unlikely to survive even within a womb), I suspect they'd be at the back of the queue for incubator places anyway.

Christ, are you guys in the UK lacking in enough beds in NICUs?! When my baby was in one, it never occurred to me to worry about whether or not she would be taken care of.

azahar, does the *law* allow personal/social reasons for abortion? It doesn't here, but it is well known that's what happens - and shouldn't necessarily. Some women boast of using abortion for contraception.

<>
Old Testament, Matholwch.(Which has little or no validity, to me, though many perhaps most, other Christians see it differently.) Contrast the well known (and I know it's known to you) story in the Gospels about the 'woman taken in adultery' who was *not* stoned.
<>
Could you give a citation for these events, newspaper or book or link?
<>
Which may well have to do with the area where you are or were. Also please note, not all working class people sound like the characters in Monty Python,who wore knotted handkerchiefs on their heads...

<>

So you have said before, Della. And some anti-abortionists (including medical doctors) would prefer to see a woman dead before terminating a pregnancy.

Of course there will always be some who abuse the system. I have never personally heard a woman boast about multiple terminations. But I have had my own life judged as less important than that of a potential human by someone who thought they would be able to influence my decision.

<>

The world's abortion laws:

http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_abortion_laws.html

New Zealand, like Spain, includes the mental health factor (along with saving a woman's life and physical health) as a legitimate reason for an elective termination within the first 90 days. Great Britain additionally includes socioeconomic grounds. I believe that Spain will also be adding socioeconomic grounds this year.


az

"Abortion Law Battle Begins in 3 Cities"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3919535,00.html

"Hut said the law was ``hopelessly unclear,'' so poorly written that it ``threatens virtually all second trimester abortions,'' or about 10 percent of the abortions performed each year nationally.

Doctors, he said, will testify that 95 percent of the women who undergo the abortions wish they could continue the pregnancy but choose to terminate them because of abnormalities of the fetus or because the woman's health or life is in danger."


az

Thanks for the link, I found that all very interesting...

Norma McCorvey (the original Roe from Roe vs Wade (sp?)) was interviewed on BBC World last night. She has found god and become a prolifer. She is going back to the supreme court to try and get the original ruling overturned.

She had loads of very disturbing things to say, and I tried to write as much of it down as I could.

I have to do some work now, but I'll be back in a bit to put some of it in here...

<>

Correction - she has found god and become an anti-abortionist. Also a hypocrite is she now wants to get the ruling overturned.


az

She very strongly identified herself as a pro lifer rather than an anti abortionist. She said that the pro-abortion lobby labelled her anti-abortion but she feels that is negative and so prefers to call herself pro-life.

One of the first questions asked was if she was pro-life across the board, so against the death penalty. She said she was against the death penalty. The conversation then went something like this:
Tim Sebatian: But you voted for George W Bush who as governer of Texas was a stropng proponent of the death penalty, send many people to their death.
Norma McCorvey: I don't know about that, I didn’t keep up with that. I didn’t vote, I was a non voting person before Bush was running for office.

The exchange then continued like this, (I was trying to type as it was said but I apologise if I missed anything).

TS: Are there any circumstances where an abortion is justified
NM: No, in rape or incest the child is still a child and shouldn’t be aborted

TS: What about medical problems that threaten the life of the mother? If the mother’s life is threatened and she could die in childbirth what then? Do you favour the life of the child over the mother?
NM: It should be decided by her husband or pastor or priest. Or she could have some input maybe if she is able. I agree with the catholic church position.
TS: So there is some hope then?
NM: It should be decided by the people involved with it.

Az - "Also a hypocrite is she now wants to get the ruling overturned" I think anyone is entitled to change their mind, especially over something as important as this issue.

She was asked what changed her mind:
NM: I worked in an abortion clinic from 1991 to 1995. Abortionists terrorise women, leave them brutalised and haemorrhaging. Legal abortions cause the deaths of thousands of women
TS: Where are your figures from?
NM: I have no basis for my figures
NM: Doctors do abortions and then go off to play golf
TS: That happens in every branch of medicine
NM: I am only concerned with abortion.

TS: What changed your mind and made you think abortion was wrong. You thought it was okay in 1973 and when you were working in the clinic?
NM: In 1973 I was misled by my lawyers. I was told that if abortion was made legal it would out an end to rape and incest but this is still happening

TS: What do you feel about women in the same position as you were then?
NM: They have more information now there are pregnancy crisis centres, there is the information superhighway. They don’t have to be misled.

NM: I tried to commit suicide when it turned out I was the plaintiff, I was the executioner

TS: But before that you thought it was ok, how did you justify it to yourself when you were working in an abortion clinic?
NM With several pitchers of margherita every night.

TS: When did this change
NM: When I met some children who showed me a new way of life and god came into my life

TS: And you thought it was wrong
NM: Yes. Abortion stops a beating heart.

TS: Why would you take away a choice?
NM: Women should not act as their own gods

TS: What about birth control, do you agree with the catholic church on that? What about in Africa where the church turns a blind eye.
NM: I don’t know, I only know about America.

NM: We are now lodging a new appeal to get roe verses wade overturned

TS: What do you say about women dying in illegal abortions
NM: That is just pro abortion hype

TS: But 5-10,000 women were dying ever year according to official figures
NM: Thousands of women have died since abortion was legalised. People need to understand why we are doing this, we are trying to save women’s lives

TS: What do you say about attacks against abortionists
NM: You are dating yourself it happened in the 80s I don’t know anyone in the prolife movent who has anything to do with that

TS: So you would condemn that?
NM: yes is it bloodshed for bloodshed

Kelli,

<>

Well, she can call herself anything she likes but in my opinion someone who is pro-life would not heartlessly condemn other women to death. Also, there is no such thing (afaik) as a 'pro-abortion lobby'. People are not promoting terminations, they are promoting the right to choose.

I agree with you that anyone is allowed to change their minds about issues but I find it hypocritical that she would want a law overturned that suited her when she was of a different opinion.

What you have managed to transcribe of the interview is quite chilling. She comes across sounding almost brain-washed and certainly uninformed about almost everything, including legal terminations. It would be interesting to find the whole transcript of the interview.

az

Yes I found particularly disturbing her claim that "Thousands of women die during abortions" yet then saying she has no evidence for this.

I would very much like to either hear or read the transcript from the interview.

"Roe's change of heart
Roe v Wade is also under threat from a more unexpected direction. The case was brought in the name of "Jane Roe", an alias for a young Texan woman Norma McCorvey. Her involvement in the abortion movement was almost accidental, pregnant for the third time out of wedlock she was seeking an illegal abortion. She couldn't find one, but came into contact with two young lawyers who were looking for an individual case to take to the Supreme Court. The rest, as they say, is history. But Norma McCorvey is now trying to get the original ruling overturned, because she has become totally opposed to abortion.

This change of heart can be traced to her time working at a Californian abortion clinic. After one occasion in which she opened a freezer containing aborted body parts, she began having nightmares about abortion. She now campaigns against the procedure. "My name will always be associated with the killing of children" she told me, "and I don't like that". Norma McCorvey now has a legal team working on her behalf to try to get the Supreme Court to reconsider the original ruling, though it may refuse to do so."