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

An oldie but a goodie.
http://www.burgy.50megs.com/six.htm
A testimony from a practising catholic who is not pro choice but recognises that the religious rights meddling with the law is short sided.

one love

Perhaps once I stop crying after reading all those heart-rending testimonies I'll be able to say something about them.

Though I am still able to feel angry that Bush has closed off this option for women like these now! I am so so so angry about that!

az

I see, and I note the source.
I presume 'this guy' is Bush, and as I have said, I support *nothing* that he does, and further, I do not support the sentience of an 8 cell embryo...though I do, of course believe in the 'immaterial something called the soul'. My view is that we can't know...(and yes, azahar, I know you weren't saying anything about me, I just want to clarify my views.)

>though I do, of course believe in the 'immaterial something called the soul'. My view is that we can't know<

I'll agree with you there, Della. That's the thing about having beliefs, or faith. You don't, and can't really *know*. And I do agree about the "immaterial... soul". Seems we're all in agreement on that, more or less.

I read the contributions by those women, and the one husband, at that one link. I can relate to how that felt, and how difficult and painful it would have been. I'm glad that these women were able to choose to do what they did, no matter how hard, and lived and can still have children, as can I, should I choose to at a later date.

I must have a look at that link when I get home and get the chance - I couldn't before...
I am glad you can have children, psychocandy, and maybe will someday. You'll be a great Mum!

Thank you, Della. What a sweet thing to say, it's made me feel really good. You are one good lady!

<>

That has been my argument all along. We *can't* know and so we are not justified in forcing what we might believe onto others.


az

<>

Yes, it was about Bush making a new law that states any foetus, even an 8 cell embryo, has the same rights as the woman whose body it is existing within. Do you think this is fair?

And if not, if a woman decided on an elective termination, say, within five or six weeks, before the foetus was much more than a gathering of cells, would you object to this? Do you believe the soul enters the foetus at the moment of conception? Does this make it a human from day one? I'm really interested to get your take on this.

Bush is totally supporting the anti-abortion viewpoint. So how can you say you do not agree with anything he does?

az

The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; it is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other persons; which weighs their interests alongside its own, without bias ... ." -- Judge Learned Hand, 5/21/1944

one love

That is a nice quote blicky.

Recently Matholwch dropped out of this discussion saying it was circular and going nowhere.

I disagree.

It isn't circular so much as perhaps very two-sided, with one side saying they are right and the other side saying they want options left open for people to decide.

The thing is, pro-choice people seem more tolerant. That even if they cannot reconcile their beliefs to believe the termination of a foetus could ever be 'right' (for example, in my case) they recognize the right of the woman to make this difficult choice for herself.

Anti-abortionists would like to see all elective terminations become illegal, solely based on their own personal beliefs.

az

<>
IMHO, Bush is totally evil, and he taints everything he touches. I believe he does *nothing* out of principle, but that everything he does, he does for the sake of keeping in good with those he perceives to be his supporters.
<>
Yes, I would and do object to this, but I would say and do nothing to stop her. It's her life. (If the woman was a friend or relative, I'd ask her to take second, third and fourth thoughts and make sure there is really no alternative.
<>
As I said, we cannot know when the soul enters the foetus. IMO, the foetus is human from Day One, and that's got nothing to do with the soul. As the foetus (or at this stage embryo) is manifestly not a part of the mother's body only, and as it is of the human species, what else can it be?

Della, I'm curious - do you object to the ending of any conceived life? eg 2 days old?

How about once the egg is fertilised and either has or hasn't implanted in the uterus? Does that mean you object to those forms of contraception that either prevent implantation, or disrupt implantation early on?

I have heard that 80% of conceptions don't result in a pregnancy, and that therefore any woman has been 'pregnant' many more times than she knows. My problem is with the intentional ending of a known pregnancy, one which has implanted and started to develop. All else being equal, barring accidents, that pregnancy can become a born child.
That's why I find pro-choice people chanting 'every sperm is sacred' to ridicule pro-lifers, so silly. Masturbation doesn't enter into it (literally) and the incident in the Old Testament that people like to make much of, was actually coitus interruptus. The guy was in trouble, because he refused to conceive a child with the wife he had..
BTW, did you hear the one about the old lady who called her budgie Onan?
It was because he 'spilled his seed upon the ground'.

ok, so your personal view is that the pregnancy starts with implantation of the fertilised egg? But it's ok to prevent the fertilised egg from implanting?


>>I have heard that 80% of conceptions don't result in a pregnancy, and that therefore any woman has been 'pregnant' many more times than she knows.<<

I'm not sure of the figures but it is also true that women are in fact sometimes pregnant (i.e. the egg has implanted) and then miscarry early in the pregnancy - say when their period is due.

I imagine that you think this is ok if it happens of it's own accord, but it's not ok if the woman does this intentionally?

~~~

>>That's why I find pro-choice people chanting 'every sperm is sacred' to ridicule pro-lifers, so silly.<<

I think that joke is aimed at the Catholic Church because it considers a sin any form of contraception that interfers with the supposedly natural right of sperm to go it's own way. eg condoms

and your point on this would be...and based on...this is interesting.

My point is I think that this is largely my lot (males) dictating what you either a) can and cannot do and b) what you should and should not do-that's the choice live your lives according to us or...well then you have problems...

<< you think this is ok if it happens of it's own accord, but it's not ok if the woman does this intentionally?>>
Basically, yes. If it happens of its own accord, there are (presumably) good physical reasons, such as defects in the conceptus. If a woman intentionally aborts what could be a viable pregnancy, for no good reason, i.e., *when there is an alternative,* that's nothing short of irresponsible.

"If a women intentionally aborts what could be a viable pregnancy, for no good reason, ie, *when there is an alternative,* thats nothing short of irresponsible"

as I see it the pro-choice arguement is that the women is better placed to make decisions on what a viable pregnancy is, what a good reason for an abortion is, and what a suitable alternative might be if one exists than any doctor, politician or church is

Well, there I have to disagree... she should not decide on her own, bnut in consultation with her husband/partner, doctor etc. Notice I said in consultation with, not under the thumb of...

of course she should consult them but the final decision has to be hers alone or else they've effectively got a veto