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

Come on, she did say it was the first thing she came across, for all you know she Googled it.

Bouncy,

It's my experience with Google that you can come across just about anything at all that will back up, well, just about anything.

az

Yes, the point being that perhaps its a bit unfair to critisize a person's complete set of views based on one site that has some ignorant stuff written on it. Most sites do somewhere.

You are very galant Boucy and Im just Mr angry pants today. It is probably because Im tired from dashing all over the place or because Im evolving into Member, is another theory that has crossed my mind.

Having said that Im not really aware of a single part of Dellas reasoning thats not based on ignoring information that disagrees with her personal views and that site is just as bad if not worse as it wants to say that following Gods word is the answer to everything and all problems are caused by not following god.


Stay strong brother

*waves to Mr angry pants!*

Nooooo, don't turn into Member. I like you just the way you are.

az

First of all, psychocandy thank you for sharing puts a more personal face on the issue. I also went through a termination as the male half of the couple and it has not an easy decision to make, but at least it was our decision not the state.

Secondly Kelli the hypocrisy in the argument comes from. I should have had the right to chose and I did and now I know it is wrong for everyone else. She is taking the thing she fought for, the choice and removing it from other women because she "knows" better when the people before her apparently "knew" better and had denied her the choice. She still has the choice to never get an abortion. The hypocricy is in attempting to deny others of said choice.

The Catholic church is opposed to abortion for any reason. No exceptions. It is also opposed to ANY form of birth control, pills, shots, condoms, etc. Abstinance until marriage and sex only with procreation in mind are the only options.

As far as women dying in legal abortions... People die from all kinds of things, this does not mean they should be illegal. I am not going to bother to look but if I pulled up the statistics for people who slip and kill themseleves in the shower can I start a movement to make showers illegal? Fact is that one day you will die of something regardless of the law. The real point is this. LESS women die from legal abortion than illegal abortion. By maintaing its legal status abortions are performed by qualified regulated medical personnel. Illegal medical procedures are not performed by people with alternative means of income.

Well said, Tamberlaine


az

<>
I googled abortion deaths, chose a site that had the information I needed, I gave the URL (something you have seldom done when making an assertion). I didn't read the rest of the site, I didn't have time.
So don't make silly accusations. (Oh, I forgot, that's the kind of thing you do, isn't it.)

<>
Yes, I had noticed. The personal attacks instead of criticising my *views* are kind of a dead giveaway...
<>
Which is an example. Deja vu all over again!

Hello Physcocandy

I just want to repeat others before me, thanks for sharing your story.

Jane

>> "I just want to repeat others before me, thanks for sharing your story."

Likewise, and also for you, Jane, and for anyone else who has shared a personal story, *whatever* position they hold on abortion. On such an emotionally charged issue, it must be hard to talk publicly.


Regarding the abortion-death webpage mentioned earlier, Della *did* say straight off that it was the first thing she found, however;_

>> "The woman’s death is often made public when family members take legal action against the abortion clinic."

Generally speaking, I'd have thought that families rarely seek publicity for the death of a loved one, whatever the cause. Publicity tends to come because there's some other aspect to the death, such as a crime or legal action that makes it newsworthy. I'm not sure abortion is much of a special case in that respect.

The cases mentioned generally seemed fairly easy to link to abortion from a medical viewpoint. Of course, some cases may be harder to link, such as where the death happened some time later and the woman hadn't told anyone else about the abortion.
However, if the commonest causes of death are immediate complications during the operation, or causes relatively obviously linked (uterine bleeding, etc.), I'd assume that most deaths would at least have a good chance of being linked to abortion, expecially since the women involved would be likley to be of an age where their death should raise suspicion.
That said, if only the more proximate cause of death (infection, haemorrage, etc.) was typically listed as the actual *cause* of death, then significant underreporting could occur in overall statistics, in the same way it could do in the case of illegal abortion. In fact, thinking about it, I guess the pressure for the friends or family (or family doctor) to cover up an *illegal* abortion, or for the woman not to have told anyone what she was attempting, might well be greater.
I suppose it depends on the reporting standards of the country concerned, but I'd presume that it wouldn't be hard to put realistic bounds on probable deaths by comparing countries with different reporting systems, if someone wanted to do the work to find out. Maybe someone has done - I haven't researched enough to find out yet.


Finally, regarding Monty Python,
>>"The upper class twits who were responsible for the piece of sh*te that was Monty Python were a bunch of elitist sexist swine."

They weren't all upper-class, nor were they all twits. Given that they poked fun at people of *all* classes, focussing on the few times they stuck hankies on their heads to provoke laughs at a particular subsectional stereotype of working-class men seems a bit unfair. I seem to remember 'The upper-class twit of the year competition', and numerous middle-class-idiot sketches as well.
If they had focussed solely on one section of the population they could have been accused of being blinkered and insular.
They even managed to pre-empt the 'Who's more working class' argument, with the famous 'Four Yorkshiremen'.

Re Monty Python, I have to admit to a complete and total loathing of it that is almost unreasonable. Maybe I am guilty therefore, of selective memory - but there seemed to a lot of silly "aren't we clever rebelling against what the stupid people who haven't gone to Oxbridge think" about it, and like it or not, my view of things from the other side of the world is Eton/Oxbridge = Upper class chinless wonder. (Not helped by an ex who fits the stereotype brilliantly, Oxbridge and all.)
Nevertheless, I still think the Monty Python people, sorry, men (and it was all a boys' club, let's face it) were not one half as clever as they thought they were...
Give me Hale and Pace, French and Saunders, Red Dwarf or even Smith and Jones any day. Clever but not poncy. Oh, and Fry and Laurie and Alexei Sayle. Brilliant!

Aye, when I was a lass, I lived in cardboard box....

Della, I seem to remember some upper middle class twats as well. Still I'll bear in mind what you are saying about the working class bias. I watched a bit of MP last year and it did start me thinking about their attitudes to women. I need to watch some more bearing in mind the cultural milieu of the 70s. I have to be in the right mood to watch them though

~~~

blicky, sorry, but you've quite a ways to go before you make it into Member's league

~~~

I do think it'd be good to cut Della some slack. I called Della on her communication style, so I'll call others on the 'other' side of the argument too. There isn't really any need to have a go at someone's belief system is there? Or if you want to, can you not do it by stating your own beliefs about her beliefs without it being a put down? I know the temptation. I don't like the Christian fundamentalist view for instance, but I think that Della is making an effort here, and that it is better for the conversation that she stays.

I can see holes in Della's arguments (as well as others' including my own). I'd rather see those addressed.


In terms of the under-reporting of deaths associated with abortion I think this is true. I don't remember the reason exactly, but there is something to do with the actual cause of death and reporting of such and why it doesn't get listed as connected to abortion.

For instance the woman who had a heart attack wouldn't have abortion listed on her death certificate obviously.

I think it is problematic - it would definitely be better to have reliable statistics.

I don't think anyone was saying that women don't die from abortion complications. This is not the same as saying that having an abortion kills women.

Women also die during childbirth. It would be interesting to compare the figures.

I think it highly unlikely that the maternal death rate from abortion complications is very high.

<>
I want to make it very plain that while I *am* a Christian, I am *not* a fundamentalist! No way, no how, ever.
<< I called Della on her communication style>>
I am sorry, I still don't think there's anything wrong with my conversational style. A much harsher style is considered acceptable for Blinkybadger, for instance... It reminds of the list you've no doubt seen Kea, where a man and a woman are compared - He's assertive, She's aggressive',
He's firm, she's dogmatic
He feels very strongly, She's an over-emotional whiner
He's clever and capable of pointed remarks, She's a snide b*tch... Etc.
(Note to BB - this is an analogy, I am not man-bashing...)
<>
I'd like to see a comparison as well. The only figures I have seen for maternal death in childbirth, are years out of date... I do know that apropos of mortality figures, someone posted a link to sites about the number of deaths caused by illegal abortions before 1973 in the USA, and their inflation for purposes of garnering public support for freely available abortion. I recall too, that his sources were ridiculed and he himself likewise, in the same way the site I googled (yes, I did) yesterday, was.
There is a double standard re expression, on this thread. I have been called a man hating feminist/fundamentalist woman hater/ignorant housewife and marriage-and-sex hating solo mother. None of these exactly go together!

Basically if anyone is going to point to deaths, from legal abortion on one side, to illegal abortion or continued pregnancy on the other, as justification of their argument, there need to be some reliable statistics or else it descends to people flinging painful and unquantifiable anecdotes at opponents, which at best seems less than helpful.

As a pro-choice sceptic, my gut instinct would be to guess in the first instance that if complications from legal abortions were large, vaguely accurate figures would be stated by the pro-life/anti-abortion lobby, and/or I would have heard more in the media.
However, as a metalevel sceptic even of my own views, I have to wonder if there are accurate figures to support my argument either. If not, someone really should be out there trying to get a proper picture of the real situation, whatever it is.

>> "I think it highly unlikely that the maternal death rate from abortion complications is very high."

I'd really like to think that as well, but I'd like to see some (preferably objective) international figures to back up my guesswork and/or prejudice.

Concerning MP and comedy:-
a) Not all the sketches worked - selective memory *does* enhance the better ones
b) If they poked fun at everyone, (and I seem to remember most sketches involved just men anyway), is it sexist if they also poked fun at women?
c) If a female comic pokes fun at men, does that make *her* automatically sexist?
d) If one can understand that a particular sketch takes the mickey out of a particular kind of man, rather than men as a whole, is it not reasonable to assume a 'sexist' sketch is taking the mickey out of a particular kind of woman, rather then women as a whole? Obviously, if one subscribes to the view that all womankind is part of some overarching universal sisterhood, whether they wish to be or not, one might take a different view to mine, but I tend to see people as people, rather than cleft in twain by some binary us-and-them divide. If no man can make fun of any kind of woman, then the reverse is presumably true, so comedy seems doomed to segregation.
e) Working class people did laugh at them as well.

Monty Python again...
I remember that the *only* woman I ever saw on MP (men in drag don't count) was a naked blonde in a wheelbarrow being trucked around the place by a twit in a suit. This could be selective memory, but I don't think so.
It could have a lot to do with the boys' boarding school, Eton/Harrow male thing, where boys get used to having to have thin, young ones of their number playing the 'girls' (girls' schools used male teachers, I know, as I went to a girls' school.) The boys then got used to the boys' club atmosphere, and found the idea of real women (as opposed to girls, naked and silent for preference) quite alarming.

PS
Della, I do wish BB would be less aggressive as well. I don't think it helps his argument.

I'm not entirely sure there's a *general* "He's assertive, she's agressive" or suchlike sexist feeling on the thread, though that doesn't necessarily apply to everyone posting. There are women with positions all across the debate, and to me it would seem even more foolish than usual, given the topic, to dismiss anyone's views based on their sex.

If anything, I'd suggest that antagonism to religion is maybe more significant than sexism, at least from what I've read.

<< I'd suggest that antagonism to religion is maybe more significant than sexism, at least from what I've read.>>
That's exactly it, Potholer! My listing of the sexism argument is because (a) kea will no doubt know it, and (b) because it was meant as a (rather laboured) analogy.
Even pointing out that I see antagonism to religion has got me in trouble in the past - some people have told me that no, it's me they have a problem with, not my religion.
That's strange to me, because I use the same conversational style on threads where religion isn't an issue (and some where it is) without eliciting any antagonism!

Della <quote>:>
I want to make it very plain that while I *am* a Christian, I am *not* a fundamentalist! No way, no how, ever.



Fair enough Della. I didn't actually mean you although I can see who you would think I did. I was careless in my posting. I know you are not what I would call fundamentalist. The point I was trying to make was to blicky that I would find it tempting to write off someone's whole vie if I though say they were fundamentalist. But it isn't a helpful thing to do. I shouldn't have put your name in the same sentence - it was sloppy of me. Sorry.


Della <quote>

<< I called Della on her communication style>>
I am sorry, I still don't think there's anything wrong with my conversational style. A much harsher style is considered acceptable for Blinkybadger, for instance... It reminds of the list you've no doubt seen Kea, where a man and a woman are compared - He's assertive, She's aggressive',
He's firm, she's dogmatic
He feels very strongly, She's an over-emotional whiner
He's clever and capable of pointed remarks, She's a snide b*tch... Etc.
(Note to BB - this is an analogy, I am not man-bashing...)

</quote>

I am pretty familiar with that old double standard, and you can rest assured that you will never get it from me. You're more likely to find my prejudices against fundamentalists . I have seen you post antagonistically in non-religious contexts, and my analysis of it has nothing to do with gender. I agree that blicky an others post here rudely too.

In fact there was a spat a page or three ago where Az was calling someone arrogant in a very rude way. I thought the peron being accused was actually ebing quite reasonable. I wish I had said something then as it came just after I had said something to you about your style and Az had agreed with me. Sometimes stuff gets lost in the b/l and I'm not sure I want to be the communication police.

Della <quote>

There is a double standard re expression, on this thread. I have been called a man hating feminist/fundamentalist woman hater/ignorant housewife and marriage-and-sex hating solo mother. None of these exactly go together!

</quote>

I think there is an inequality simply because you are the only obvious anti-choice voice. That is why I wanted to call blicky on what he said esp. as I had called you a few days ago. I haven't called you any of those other things though .


Potholer <quote>

Concerning MP and comedy:-
a) Not all the sketches worked - selective memory *does* enhance the better ones
b) If they poked fun at everyone, (and I seem to remember most sketches involved just men anyway), is it sexist if they also poked fun at women?
c) If a female comic pokes fun at men, does that make *her* automatically sexist?
d) If one can understand that a particular sketch takes the mickey out of a particular kind of man, rather than men as a whole, is it not reasonable to assume a 'sexist' sketch is taking the mickey out of a particular kind of woman, rather then women as a whole? Obviously, if one subscribes to the view that all womankind is part of some overarching universal sisterhood, whether they wish to be or not, one might take a different view to mine, but I tend to see people as people, rather than cleft in twain by some binary us-and-them divide. If no man can make fun of any kind of woman, then the reverse is presumably true, so comedy seems doomed to segregation.
e) Working class people did laugh at them as well.

</quote>

The converse would be that it's impossible to make a sexist joke, or make a TV programme in a sexist way. I'd disagree with both of those. Should we start a new thread on gender and class in Monty Python sketches, do you think?

Sexism is only reversible in the way that you suggest if you think that sexism is about individual oppression only. Which it's not. The whole point of an analysis of gender prejudice (or any prejudice for that matter) is that it is based on who has power, and that has to be looked at in institutional and societal contexts as well as an individual one.

Why were there no outstanding long running famous groups of women comedians on TV in the 70s? Oh that's right because women just aren't funny (either that or they were all employed on Benny Hill ).


I agree all three of us that we need some decent statistics on maternal peri-abortion deaths.

kea,

Sorry, I couldn't let this go:

<>

I did not call the person arrogant. I referred to a statement he had made. My exact comment was:


His statement had been:


You may think he was being reasonable. I found it an arrogant stance that he thought I should clarify my views at his request while he would only post his views 'if he felt like it'. You may think I was being rude but I referred only to his statement, not to him personally, and I said 'in my opinion'.

I do try my best to be as clear as I can when I post but sometimes people do misinterpret things. And I am never intentionally rude to anyone - I do try to choose my words very carefully so that I don't say anything personal.

<>

Yes, I think it is better to refer to these things at the time rather than mention them vaguely a few pages later. As for being the 'communication police' I have stepped in off-thread when I found people being obviously rude. In fact I have often come to Della/Adele's aid on this thread though I did it elsewhere so as not to 'fan the flames', as it were.

Well, that's all really. I know misunderstandings happen and I just wanted to clear this one up.

az