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

<>
I know many, many women who've had abortions, and none of them are me - but at least one is a relative - a sister (as I recall you had previously not believed...but it's true.)
The woman who had the unfaithful husband told me her story, unprompted, and that's been the case with most of the others. I've never been involved in clinic protests or the like, these are just people I have met, often in solo mothers' groups, and a surprisingly large (to you) proportion of them have expressed bitter regret for their past decision. Not "it was a sad but necessary choice" but "I wish I had chosen differently." Like it or not, these are real women and that's really what they said.
The nub of it is, to me there are three people involved (at the least) The mother, the father and the baby. (Or as you would insist) potential baby, so it's not just a woman's personal choice.

<>
Don't be silly, BB, of course I know, as you well know I do.

The removal of a fallopian tube containing an ectopic pregnancy is *not* an abortion.
I was talking about *physical* reasons, as everyone always wants to give the impression that women who 'can't' get abortions will be dying like flies, which is nonsense.
As for pre-eclampsia, I've had it myself, and with good nursing and medical care, it is *not* an excuse. (Nor is it a reason).

<>

As I recall, at the time you were pretending that Adele was your real life sister and that it was Adele who had had a termination (or that one of Adele's sisters had). Later you spoke about your *real* real life sister having had a termination. Hence my confustion. It was not disbelief.

Yes, I also know many, many women who have had elective terminations. Most of them had no obvious serious physical health threat but for various reasons felt they could not go through with a pregnancy. Whether I personally think their reasons were 'right' is completely beside the point. It was the fact that they had a safe medical option to choose that I think is the most important thing.

<>

Why would I be surprised? Meanwhile, do you think that because of what you say you saw in a small selection of women it is fair to then say this applies to all the women in the world? This is similar to your sweeping statement that 'most' women acknowledge the protecting mental health option for elective terminations as being 'an excuse'. You haven't answered my previous two queries about this:
1. define mental health
2. how do you know most women acknowledge this?

<>

Didn't you just sneer at kea for using the term 'father of the foetus'? Now you are using mother, father *and* baby. Meanwhile, a foetus is not a baby, it is not something that I personally would insist on, it is a fact. Though one might feel it is a baby, as I did, this does not make it so.

While I agree that a woman's partner, family, doctor, etc may well provide some good support and advice I do not see how the decision should belong to anyone else but the woman. Are you suggesting that women are mere breeding vessels whose right to choose when they will reproduce should be in the hands of others? Partners, clergymen, doctors, anti-abortionists?

<>

Can you please refer us to the postings where people have said this? There must be several if 'everyone' has been suggesting what you say.


az

<>
Sigh. It's deja vu all over again. I never said that Adele had had a termination, and you were the only person who ever thought Adele was my sister... What with that old accusation and BB's actions today - well, deja vu as I said.
<>
As you probably well know, it was the term 'father of the foetus' I found bizarre, not the term father as such. It amounts to linguistic acrobatics - 'father of the foetus', I ask you! Women who experience a 'wanted' pregnancy don't say 'Oh, I felt my foetus kick" or "I think I'll call my foetus Catherine", they say baby from the start. (At least, lest you accuse me of assuming *a;;* women share my peculiar views, I'll say that was my experience, and that of my sisters, who your accusations aside, are independent people...)
<>
That's an absurd and emotive accusation. You know I am not saying that at all, I'm answering your accusation that I am butting into the private lives of women. I am just pointing out why I don't believe it's a purely private issue, unlike say hysterectomy or sterilisation.
<>
Another absurd and emotive statement. Did I not just say 'have been giving that impression? I did not say anyone had said that in so many words!

Oh - and I did not sneer at kea. If *she* took it that way, I am sorry, that was not my intention, and if she took it that way, I am sure she'll tell me.

Della:

"It's been my experience generally, in life, that anyone who can't handle an opposing view without getting upset, is unsure of her own view."

You obviously have very little idea of your own views then - you seem in my experience to be completely incapable of carrying on a conversation with someone who disagrees with you without flying off the handle. Indeed, on more than one occasion your poor grasp of English has caused you to fly off at people who AGREED with you, because there was some tiny detail of their phraseology you took irrational exception to.

Also, please don't complain that people don't believe you when you say things. You're a proven, unapologetic liar, on this subject particularly. You cannot lie outright, then deny it in the teeth of the evidence, then expect to be taken seriously. Live with it.

I took the meaning of that comment that way too.

What Della actually means by it is that: Anyone who disagrees with her is obviously mistaken in their views and that the friction between their views and reality (of which Della has an omniscient grasp) is evident in their voices'.

one love

There are two things I don't understand at the moment.

1. What is wrong with the term 'father of the foetus'?

I used those words as a generic term to describe the male who was biologically responsible for the conception of a say 6 week old foetus. Nowhere did I imply that this was a term used by pregnant women (although come to think of it I can imagine quite a few wry women I know using it). I still think it's useful term to use in this context of this thread. If someone has another generic term to use, by all means offer it here.

Unfortunately, as I was pointing out, husband/partner is useful only in some situations. It is not appropriate when discussing women who are wanting an abortion as a whole, as it excludes and often marginalises women who have neither.


2. Della, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you posted in an aggravated way in reply to me. What I am starting to wonder is if you get some kind of charge from this kind of communicating. For me personally, I get a great charge out of intense constructive debate even amongst people that strongly disagree with each other. I don't enjoy it when it gets personal or when the words used have some kind of slap to them.

Maybe it's just your personal style. All I can say is that the last few posts where you have replied me have left me feeling disrespected by you.

I'm pretty low on energy right now - I really can't be bothered being in a conversation that has this kind of communication in it, so I probably won't respond to your points at the moment. I really hope that this hasn't been the intended outcome of why you communicate in this way.

post script:

I just had a look at the posts that I hadn't enjoyed to see what really was the problem and I think it is this:

Della, I made a relatively simple and 'uncharged' post. Your replies to it took what I had said, moved them out of context and into _your own_ frame of reference and thus your own interpretations of them, and then responded to them by pulling apart arguments I had never made in the the first place.

Given that you have experienced people misinterpreting your view alot, I am surprised to see you doing this to me.

Worse, you taking my view and changing it into something you can pull apart strikes me as being self serving. I find it insulting. I guess I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt because I am particularly unwell at the moment and so less likely to let such things slide off me, and also because I wonder if you are not aware of what you are doing.

This is all about one post really - #1553. I guess there have been other ideas thrown out without due care, especially the one about there being hardly any women who have an abortion for mental health reasons. It's like just because you say it it must be true. When, in the case of the mental health issue, it's not true what happens is that the debate becomes about trying to get past prejudice rather than discussing the issues. Again, I don't have the energy for that kind of thread right now.

I don't wish you any ill. I am feeling frustrated because I think that if you posted in a less charged way there would be more middle ground where we could meet, and we might learn something from each other. It's likely that me focussing on your style again won't go down very well - I just am telling it how I see it, and I did have some quite important realisations about what was upsetting me.


kea.

Thought I should add, for clarity's sake, that I hadn't seen Member's or Blicky's post when I made mine.

One other quickie here. Della wrote:

"you were the only person who ever thought Adele was my sister", as though this in some way excuses her lies.

Della: not being very good at lying, indeed, being desperately bad at it, is not an excuse to carry on doing it.

And if people doubt your figures, it's because in the past - in this very thread - you have fabricated inaccurate figures to suit your own purposes, figures which were very quickly and easily shown to be made up. You then violently denied making things up. Please don't complain if we treat you as an irrational irrelevance.

<>

Actually, Della, it was you that brought up Adele again. And no, I am not the only person who thought she was your sister. And yes, you did say that either she or 'her sister' had had a termination. It's somewhere here in the backlog.

<>

Please show me the posting where I accused your real sisters of not being real and independent people.

<> (me)

<<That's an absurd and emotive accusation. You know I am not saying that at all, (you)

It was not any sort of accusation. I asked you if this was what you were suggesting because you seem to think other people should be able to decide when a woman reproduces.

<>

Again, where exactly have I accused you of doing this? I certainly think that anti-abortionists do much worse than merely 'butt into' the private lives of women. And you have said that if a friend or family member was considering a termination you would take her around to other people to try and convince her that there was another alternative (though I didn't get the impression this alternative would necessarily be the best one for the woman).

Unfortunately, Della, you seem to be proving a statement I made earlier about there not being any rational anti-abortionists out there (at least, I have not yet met one). You are leaping to conclusions and becoming aggressive and overemotional and accusing people of accusing you of things that they never said or implied.

You also ignore genuine questions (define mental health/how do you know that 'many' women acknowledge the mental health option as 'an excuse?) in favour of twisting what others have said, presumably so you can feel persecuted and then have a rant. You do seem to enjoy ranting and making sweeping generalisations more than participating in rational debate, though I have never understood why.

az

This thread: Della is "pro-life".

Compare and contrast with this thread: F1697006?thread=407828 in which Della "seriously" threatens another user of this site with death. I put "seriously" in quotes, because I have such difficulty taking anything she says seriously.

I hereby dub thee "Death-threat Della", and do hope that by referring to you that way every single time I mention you on this site in future I don't in some way reduce your credibility further - if that's possible.

hi Member,

As much as I disagree with Della's anti-abortion stance, as well as with her manner of expressing herself, I wouldn't like to see this thread dissolve into a flame war between you and Della. I believe what she has just unfairly accused blicky of is being discussed on at least one other thread now?

Meanwhile, I am still hoping she will answer the serious questions that kea and I have asked her in a rational manner, if this is possible.

az

I'm in agreement with Az on this.

There is obviously alot of history between Member, blicky, and Della (and others). There is no way for people on this thread to understand the context, or make sense of the comments, unless they have been involved in the conflict. Even posting links to _parts_ of the ongoing conflict doesn't help (the above link has had it's first post modded, rendering any reference to it useless).

Because there is no context, it comes down to taking one person's word for who did what to whom, and I'm not willing to take sides in such a way. It also makes it look like Della bashing, and I'm not willing to take part in that either, irrespective of Della's responsibilities in the conflict (and I'm sure she has some just like everyone else involved).


Please take your personal conflicts elsewhere (or better yet find a way of resolving them).


kea.

This isn't merely a personal conflict, it's quite relevant to the subject: namely, there's a question of morality here. On the one hand, we have someone rabidly, incoherently anti-abortion on the grounds of sanctity of human life. On the other, that same person has raised a child who "seriously" (her word) threatens people with death. She condones this violent behaviour, to the point of willingly relaying the threats. She very clearly regards threats of murder as acceptable behaviour, and has raised violent children who believe likewise.

How can one be "pro-life" but at one and the same time "pro-murder"?

(This question is comparable to asking how people like George W. Bush can be "pro-life" but at the same time "pro-execution" - the difference being that at least the killings in that case are judicially sanctioned, not that that makes it any better.

Unfortunately, we don't have Dubya here so that we can question his contradictory beliefs. We DO have Death-threat Della here. I'd like to know how she squares this moral circle.)

As I have said here before, I quite disagree with anti-abortionists calling themselves 'pro-life' as their views on *which* lives are valuable and deserve saving are confusing and contradictory.

There is another argument for 'quality of life' (which previously someone was trying to tell me I was making, though I wasn't at the time) that anti-abortionists don't seem to consider important at all. So they scoff at the idea that going through an unwanted pregnancy could in any way cause mental anguish and say this is merely an 'excuse'.

As Della is the only anti-abortionist on this thread at the moment she has been asked to clarify many things about their beliefs, which she had tried to do more clearly earlier on. Lately she has been getting too defensive and abrasive to get her points across clearly, but perhaps she will be able to sort out her thoughts and get back to us with a more rational argument.

However, what Della has said in anger on another thread doesn't really have any relevance here, Member, as far as I can see. I'm sure there are also pro-choice people whose personal lives one could question as to being consistant with what they preach, but this is not a thread about what people do at home. Okay, Della did make the death threat remark publicly, but she didn't do so on this thread.

As far as this thread is concerned, I am far more concerned about what Della says about the mental health of women and how anti-abortionists and others should have control over a woman's choice to reproduce (or not) and I hope she will return to clarify what she means.

az

I am pro-life/anti abortion female and may I say the following in a non aggressive way. Perhaps others are afraid of joining in this thread or gone quiet because it is not a popular thing to stick your neck out on or are aware that they may be automatically dismissed in the case of males. Pro abortionists can be aggressive too and jump down your throat by saying what business is it of anyone else but the woman who is carrying the feotus. Pro-choice does not appear to include future humans
It astounds me how late on in pregnancy abortions are legal without being a termination due to risk to mother's own health. I am 6 months pregnant and when I read week by week what is happening inside my body it's astounding how close to perfect formation the feotus is. I heard the heart beat by 10 weeks, could feel the baby moving by week 16, learnt how the baby can distinguish voices early on, can breath by itself, swallow, suck thumb, grasp, respond to touch and light etc. I know in the vast majority of cases abortions are unlikely to be taken lightly by the mother, but it's very sad that others tend to regard the future person as worthless and without any rights at all compared to the female 50% of the duo responsible for its creation. Try reading up a bit on what happens from day one of conception. What is growing inside me is even by now a miniature of what will hopefully pop out in three months time, minus fully developed or self sufficient lungs. Fingernails, nasal hair, warts and all. Rather than pro lifers looking at it far to emotionally, others tend to look at it far too clinically for convenience of argument.

" Pro-choice does not appear to include future humans"

Correct. Prochoice includes real, live, here-and-now humans.

You are of course entitled to your opinion on abortion. Where we perhaps disagree is that I believe other people are entitled to their opinions too, even if they disagree with yours. Your choice is right for you, perhaps. Can you not understand that it is not necessarily right for everyone else?

Thanks for your contribution and good luck with your pregnancy Citizen S.

Yes the atmosphere in here does get a little hot, I think it goes with the subject, but you're right that's no reason not to be civil.

Having said that it is the central *question* of the pro-choice stance. Who are we to judge?

Your suggestion that people should read up about child developement is a little insulting. If you have a look through the backlog you will see that people here do for the most part know something of what they are talking about and many have taken the trouble to look up things they arent sure about.

Anyway as its gone a little quite and maybe calmer I think I'll share this with you.

A girlfriend of mine C., had unknown to me become pregnant. We had been seeing each other for a few months and around that time she had gone to stay with her mother for a while. I rang her mothers house and left messages, she did not approve of me for a couple of reasons and did not pass the messages on. It turned out that in obvious emotional turmoil at my apparent rejection C. had felt overwhelmed by the the situation.

I simply thouhgt C. had lost interest and decided to move on, knowing nothing of the pregancy, I tried to put her out of my mind. Things had been fun in the begining but it was not blossoming into any great love affair.

When she bumped into a mutual friend C. exlained what had happened. When the friend told me about it I was dumb struck. I didnt want to go to C's flat so hung out where I knew Id bump into her. She didnt give me a straight answer, but right then I realised I didnt need one.

My potential child had gone but what had really happend to me was as nothing to what she must have gone through. She was not reticent with me, she was struck dumb with loss. I didnt ask her any whys or wherefores. I wished her good luck and said she could get intouch if she wanted to though I knew that my presence was probably the last thing she wanted.

C. and I never got back together. I never wonder what might have been, but Im glad that im not wondering who is raising my child or how they are doing right now. Is someone bullying them at school or at home etc...


I know in the vast majority of cases abortions are unlikely to be taken lightly by the mother, but it's very sad that others tend to regard the future person as worthless

I think it is unfair to bring those who *might* take unborn babies as worthless into the equation without investigating what might also make those with actual children think they too are worthless. Some mothers kill their babies after birth. What sense would it be to use that as an argument against birth?

without any rights at all compared to the female 50% of the duo responsible for its creation.

When should we give the child rights, at what point from egg to birth and how do you think they should be weighed against the mothers rights?

Im taking care not to come across as jumping down your throat, which I dont want to, but I just want to know on what your basing argument against what you see as a far too clinical approach?

one love