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

Hmmm I once read a particularly err chilling short sci-fi story. Basically tyhe premise was a (no to distant) future USA which was pretty much a fundamentalist christian state treating countries that allowed abortions in much the same was as they treat drug producing "Pariah" states. Almost believable I thought.

She seems a little incoherent, although that could be Kelli's problems with following the conversation.

She admits:

"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."

Which puts her in the same category as the majority; there are circumstances under which abortion is acceptable, it is a matter of setting suitable boundaries.

It scares me that she suggests a pastor or priest should have some say in the 'life threatening' situation above - surely a doctor would be a more qualified advisor. This does indicate the source of her opinions pretty clearly though.

F

I don't know that she thinks she is heartlessly condemning other people to death, she sees it as saving women's lives. She deeply believes that women are dying because of legal abortions (admitting she didn't have a basis for that belief) and wants to stop that happening - for her at least, it isn't just about the potential life in utero.

When backed right into a corner by the interviewer about medical reasons for terminations she prevariced and ending up saying that a decision can be made over which life to save. I did find it disturbing that at first she said that decision should be made by the 'husband or pastor or priest', but later said the woman could have an input 'if she is able'. She did spoil that a little by saying she agreed with the catholic church's position, which I think favours the life of the child over the mother (could be wrong here but I think that is what they believe).

You can probably watch the interview from the BBC World website - it was one of the HARDTalk programs.

I wouldn't call what I put a transcript - I tried to get the main questions and answers but there were other comments too that I didn't get while hoping I didn't miss anything important. I ended up pitying this woman a little. I would not call her a hypocrite necessarily, she has just changed her world view entirely now she has found a religion. I didn't include some of the antagonistic questions about how she got pregnant deliberatlely. I also seem to have missed the comment that although she was the plaintiff in this case, it wasn't resolved in time for her to have a termination. She had the baby and gave it up for adoption.

That would be better as
"I deliberatlely didn't include some of the antagonistic questions about how she got pregnant." </>

should be decided by her husband or pastor or priest."

Well, obviously. I mean these three categories of people *always* have their ethics straight.

I didn't have any trouble following the conversation, I just can't type that fast while trying to pay attention to what is being said

<>

Not if he's also a Catholic anti-abortionist. Anyone can advise, obviously, but I believe the final decision should not belong to anyone but the woman.


az

<>

I ended up pitying her a lot. Also I came across this interview done by CNN a few years ago which does show her to be quite a sad case. It sounds like she has been manipulated and used by both sides, to be honest.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/21/mccorvey.interview/


az

In the book, McCorvey, a ninth-grade dropout, describes a tough life, explaining that she suffered physical and emotional abuse as a child, spent some time in reform school in Gainesville, Texas, and was raped as a teen-ager. A husband whom she married at age 16 later beat her. She also tells of her alcohol and drug abuse, and experiences with lovers of both sexes.

Her first child, Melissa, was raised by her mother; her second child was raised by the father, and the couple agreed that McCorvey would never contact her.

She drifted through a series of dead-end jobs, including work as a bartender and a carnival barker. Once she went public with her story, she worked in several clinics where abortions were performed and did some public speaking, garnering publicity and a little bit of celebrity.

Tragic and tormenting life story leads to fundamentalist conversion that washes away guilt for mistakes a person has made previously allowing condemnation of those who do what the convertee used to do. Does this remind you of anyone?

How can you trust the judgement of someone who had such an apparently awful upbringing who then lets their parents have another go with their own children?

one love

blicky,

Well, one doesn't have to trust someone's judgement to pity them. And it also doesn't mean they aren't being hypocritical.

Yes, very reminiscent of someone we know.

Also been wondering why an abortion clinic would keep foetal body parts in a freezer . . .

az

Yes big sis,

The womans story seems to be full of ideological inconsistencies, but then we all grow change and experience many different things in our lives. I do pity her in lots of ways not least because she has been used by people to push thier own cause who have very little regard for her personally. Mostly because she appears to have had such a throughly terrible childhood and adolescense that has left her vulnerable to manipulation and self confessed substance abuse.

Her new found sprituality does seem to offer her a lot of comfort and thats her own business but to push her misguded bigotry on others is hypocrisy of the highest order when she herself wanted a free and properly administered termination herself at one point. Afterall she *knows* that women will feel they have no alternative but to turn to back street profiteers or well meaning people who are risking their careers and liberty to provide these important services.

She wishes to make them all criminals partly because of an ideological shift based on dubious religious *reasons*, but worst of all because she bears a personal grudge against a few lawyers.

one love

Well said, blicky.

It wasn't really clear to me that her grudge against the lawyers was a main motivating factor. But given her background it's not hard to see how she might have felt 'rejected' by them once all the media attention had died down. Then the anti-abortionists come along who offer her 'rebirth' and offer to take care of her and also to get her back in the limelight? One possible scenario. Never underestimate the bruised and needy ego of the downtrodden and unfortunate.

az

I still don't think changing your mind makes you a hypocrite. I change my mind all the time if my previous views are challenged and I see that the reasoning behind the challenge is more valid than my previous argument. That is what happened to her. If a pro-lifer changes their mind and becomes pro-choice, are they a hypocrite too?

I agree she doesn't have any right to foist her views on the rest of us, but she feels that is what she did by going to court in the first place in 1973. She feels responsible for getting safe, legal abortion onto the statute books (something to feel good about IMO), and now she wants to undo her previous that because she feels that action was the wrong thing to do.

I hope that she will not succeed. I doubt she will as the attorney general (staunch anti-abortionist) has said that the poisition is now laid down in law and should not be changed.

Kelli,

What I deem hypocritical about this woman is not the fact that she has changed her opinion but that she does now want to foist her changed views on the rest of us. Also, talk about delusions of self-importance. The law was not changed for *her*. She is not personally responsible for the law being changed. It's just that her case was used to set a precedent and thereby helped get the law changed. If it hadn't been her it would have been someone else as there were (are) many many women in her situation.

az

So was she being a hypocrite when she foisted her views on us that abortion should be safe and legal? Or is it only hypocritical to foist views you don't happen to agree with

Thing is, you and I know that it is the law makers who make the law, but she feels responsible - every time Roe vs Wade is cited, that is her (assumed) name there. The fact that it could have been any other woman in the same position is by-the-by, she was the poster child for that law so she sees it as her 'fault'. She was the plaintiff who was asking for the change in the law and she got it. Now she feels she shouldn't have asked, and wants to undo what she did.

What she did is have a hand changeing the law so that women no longer have to seek out nefarious practitioners if they seek to have a termination, something hse herself had to go through. If she doesnt want to have them herself she shouldnt have one, no one did or ever should force her or anyone to do so. However she did not foist anything on anyone but now she is trying to force people into a situation she was against. Severly reducing the chances they will get proper counselling and a decent standard of medical care. That is without doubt hypocritical, all for the sake of salving her conscience or perhaps more sadly out of anger and in revenge for things that she feels aggrieved about.

one love

Not going to call her hypocritical, but definitely inconsistent. After all, if she originally agreed because she wanted a safe, legal abortion rather than a backstreet one then why does she now marginalise the dangers of illegal abortions?

And well its a shame she's become so dependent. Although I suppose she wouldn't be the first to hold view X because clique Y also hold it.

<>

Actually, what I said was:

<>

Clearly stating - or so I thought - that I didn't think changing an opinion was hypocritical per se. I mentioned nothing about her original opinion being hypocritical (perhaps it was, but she *was* looking to have an abortion at the time) and, no, I do not view everyone I don't happen to agree with as being a hypocrite (rather an unkind suggestion to have made, Kelli, sorry you have such a low opinion of me)

az

"..big sis"

*eyes blicky and azahar suspiciously..*

Hi della,

"Also please note, not all working class people sound like the characters in Monty Python,who wore knotted handkerchiefs on their heads... "

Ha-di-ha-ha. Being working class I do know what we look and sound like. I was a union convenor who fought Thatcher; supported the miners families when she tried to starve them out; still have the scars of a policeman's truncheon where it broke my thumb while I was trying to stem the blood flow on a miner's punctured throat (police horses have sharp hooves); served as a petty officer in the Royal Navy; worked alongside Jack Straw when he was the southern organiser for the T&G in the Jobs Not Yops campaign; served on the national executive of the NUS under David Aaronavitch (who was middle class); and so on and so forth.

So please don't patronise me, even in fun.

Blessings all the same,
Matholwch /|\.