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

hi S,

<>

That would astound me to if it were true. In most countries the limit is 12 weeks for an elective termination. A few pages ago I posted a link to global laws pertaining to terminations.

<>

I've never met a pro-abortionist! That name implies that a person would go around trying to get women to have terminations whether they wanted one or not because they would be so PRO-abortion.

Pro-choice means just that. Giving the woman a chance to decide for herself and giving her safe medical options.

az

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.)

A highly-regarded, if eccentric man of letters sadly now faded into obscurity, Swiss Toni once said;

"In all of us there is conflict between the masculine and the feminine, yin and yang....Torville and Dean."

This was immediately followed by the revelation that he was wearing women's underwear, but that's not important right now. What I took from it though, and many other insights like it is there is always a line that has to be drawn between a concept you can accept and one you can't. So Toni enthuses about the intangible very-much-like-making-love-to-a-beautiful-womanness of all things for so long that the increasing tragedy of his life forces him to give a lot of money to someone who convinces him to come to terms with the fact that he is the beautiful woman.

Member, I know you to be very in tune with the physical workings of the universe and I'm guessing you'd be a good person to ask about the 'fuzziness' of a cosmos whose true nature is by necessity obscured by the prejudices we 10-fingered, likey/no-likey creatures put upon it. Our concept of 'dark' is constantly being tested by new and interesting versions of 'less light' to the extent that we're asked to question how far our human experience of the universe is truly removed from its reality, and we get smaller and smaller with it. It's not such an illogical conclusion to suggest, I hope, that that same paucity of awareness can be attibuted to the moral, spiritual and social crises we struggle with in our depressingly terminal-seeming spiral away from our last choice.

I'm not asking anyone to believe there's no line between 'I believe killing is wrong' and 'I want to kill you', that's as absurd as my hair. What I would like is if you could examine the motives behind each position and assess what they're for.

If someone wants to protect and legislate against the deliberate termination of a life it's because they want to protect the rights of that life. That's born of a fundemental instinct to protect life, which a lot of the time evidently leads to a contradictory position which requires the termination of the most imminent threat to that life by calling it a lot of horrible names and doing what's necessary. So abortionists get shot and Dubya, like the walking pong game that he is, goes on a war on terror.

It seems our experience of life is every bit as clouded and contradictory as the laws of light and dark, and better understanding would probably be served by trying to recognise better our inadequacies when it comes to defining the life we want to protect and the protections of life that threaten us.

Somebody probably very intelligent said that a mark of intelligence is to be able to entertain two individual and opposing ideas at the same time and agree with them both. Walt Whitman said 'Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself; I am large, I contain multitudes. ' And for all his noble intentions, Bill Hicks did attack a huge section of humanity on a ticket of 'love all the people.'

I'm realising all too personally the intense difficulty that comes from bi-partisan constitutions, because the most intense and painfully sought-after craving for life I've ever felt, after a lifetime of grief is stuck on the horns of a dilemma separated both by plate tectonics and the unstinting defensive intolerances of El Bontempi. I've felt as though I had to choose between loving someone and wanting to protect her from feeling guilty because she can't afford for us to be together. I'm hoping to do both.

Whatever her statements, however they come the fact remains that Della's position is founded by a lot of anger which stems from an instinctual reaction to being hurt, as does yours. Her reaction by necessity is also going to be informed by the recent loss of her brother, so I'd guess this probably isn't the best time to be challenging her on the incontrovertibity of her attitude to life, if you indeed respect hers. Beyond that I'd say she's as conflicted as every other human being on Earth, as are most of the sentiments this conversation is generating, so maybe it's time to think outside the box a bit, to borrow from marketing tacticians (who should all die).

wow, Krispy, that is a beautiful and thoughtful post. Thank-you.

Thank-you for bringing compassion back into the conversation.

There are alot of references in your post that I don't understand. I like the one about contradictions though. I think our capacity to hold contradictions and opposing ideas within ourselves deepens our emotional intelligence as well, including our ability to understand the experiences of those we disagree with (aka compassion).

~~~

My understanding about the anti-abortion/pro death sentence/pro war stance a la Shrub, is that different lives have different value. A 'potential human' (2 week old foetus) has more value than a black man sitting on death row or a 'collateral damage' child in Iraq.

While I don't agree with this, I think if people want to have that as their set of values, they just need to be honest about it. This is why I don't accept the term pro-life. What it usually means is pro-the-life-that-I-value.

In this sense I have some similarities with the fundamentalist position, I just value different lives than them. I think all humans make different decisions about the value of various lives _on the basis of our own feeling/beliefs_.

I do think that there is a basic value to all life as a philosophy. In practical life virtually all of us do make judgements that give different value to different people.

~~~

CitizenS, welcome to the thread It's always good to have new people involved.

I have a question (which I had asked Della earlier) - at what point do you consider removing a conceived human to be an abortion?

As soon as the egg becomes fertilised, or once the fertilised egg has implanted?

I also wanted to add that this thread often talks about late term abortions, and sometimes in detail. Because you are pregnant, I wanted to let you know that at times the thread can get graphic, so please take care of yourself in this.

Perhaps we can warn if we are going to post something graphic.




kea.

I am also interested to know the views of pro-lifers about the use of IUDs which prevent implantation of a fertilised egg. Do they consider this to be a form of abortion?

Hi Teaswill,

Did you mean 'pro-lifer' or 'anti-abortionist'? I am pro-life/pro-choice and I don't think that any form of contraception could possibly be considered to be a form of abortion.

az

I think that Teaswill is asking this because IUDs are meant to prevent the succesful attachment to the uterous wall of eggs that are already fertilized and therefore a human being with rights (if you take that view). Prventing the developing human from attaching blocks further development (kills it).

Anyway enough from me, I will leave that very good question for the pro-life (anti-abortionists).

one love

Thanks for various well wishes.
Sorry - don't mean to be condescending about amount people know about advancement of feotal development it's just that so often anything before birth is not considered to be a future life or worth any rights.
az - Could you send the link again about which countries have which limits on elective abortions as I can't find it. I would be very interested to see these. I certainly thought UK was far later than 12 weeks as I am sure I have heard many times about much later terminations.
Pro abortion/life/choice and antiabortion.......we do all seem to get het up about what words are used. So perhaps I should use 'pro choice-for-woman' as opposed to just pro choice. The point shouldn't be missed though - there can be just as much aggression shown from pro choicers saying that nothing inside the womb has any rights versus the mother - especially when directed at males.
With regards to when a feotus is considered having rights or a chance of living. Personally I don't consider this should be taken back as far as before implantation of fertilised egg. While I think on this further, can I throw the question back and ask pro-choice-for the-woman people: when is it that the life considered to have any viability/choice/chance/rights. Is it merely once they have left the womb, or at 24 weeks after conception when it has strong likelihood of survival if delivered prematurely, or when it can respond to sound/touch/distinguish tastes and music in the womb. It's difficult to answer I imagine but to be black and white about it, prochoicers tend to say it's all down to the mother each and every time whether anything gets delivered and the chance of a life as if it is not a life at all until then. I've seen and felt far too much already to think like that myself.

Personally, I wouldn't see the foetus as a person in the ordinary usage of the term until the nervous system begins to develop towards integration. I think the 12 week rule is based on this (with a margin of error), making potential suffering by the foetus the main criterion for choosing this time length.

Of course, if you believe that a soul enters the body at conception you'll view it differently, but the problem is it's not something that can be demonstrated to be true or false.

Noggin

hi S,

Sorry, it would take me just as much time for me to find the link again as it would for you to do it - it's just a few pages back. It shouldn't be too hard to find. Some countries allow all sorts of variations, but for the majority it is 12 weeks.

As for terminology, you can say whatever you like, though many might not agree. Pro-choice is simply that. Pro-abortion does not exist, as far as I know. Anti-abortion is simply that. Pro-life? Don't get me started. I am pro-life and I am pro-choice. I don't see that most anti-abortionists are pro-life except for the lives they choose to see fit to protect.

Whether one regards a less than 12-week-old foetus as having human rights is, imho, a matter of personal opinion.

az

Citizen S,
I tried looking back through the last few hundred posts and didn't find the link Az had posted, so I gave up and googled around to find

http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html

which seems to cover most countries around the world.

Hope that helps.

Oh, fer heaven's sake, Potholer!

It was right there on posting 1332

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

az

>> it's just that so often anything before birth is not considered to be a future life or worth any rights. <<

S, either you are hanging out with some pretty hardline people, or you are misinterpreting the range of prochoice views.

For me personally I think that the foetus has both rights and is a future life. I also think as I said a few posts back that we all make judgements in reality about whose life is worth most.

I've put this argument before - that people who are absolutely opposed to elective abortions are in fact choosing the life of those unaborted children over the lives of other children who will suffer as a result. This is true both in countries that are considered developped like the US where child poverty is increasing. And it is true in poorer countries where children routinely die from malnutrition or dystentery because they are not able to be cared for.

To my mind if you prevent most abortions you are saying that preventing the (perceived?) suffering of those foetuses is more important than attending to the lifelong suffering of children who cannot be cared for.


>> Pro abortion/life/choice and antiabortion.......we do all seem to get het up about what words are used. So perhaps I should use 'pro choice-for-woman' as opposed to just pro choice.<<

Again I think you are missing the point here. The "choice" bit refers to the fact that the woman makes the choice, not that she makes the choice to have an abortion based solely on her own concerns.What is often missed is that fact that many women with unwanted conceptions choose to continue with the pregnancy. That's the point - that there are options, and it is the woman ultimately who does the choosing.

There are women who choose to have an abortion who also take the 'future child' into consideration. Some women consider that such a child can have no quality of life and that it is better that they abort the foetus. These women are not devoid of kindness. On the contrary they can be very compassionate.

You seem to think that women who are prochoice or who choose to have an abortion are devoid of feeling. As with any group of people there will always be those who are either less feeling, or _perceived_ to have less feeling, but I think it is incorrect to infer that prochoice women as a whole are any less feeling than anyone else.


>>The point shouldn't be missed though - there can be just as much aggression shown from pro choicers saying that nothing inside the womb has any rights versus the mother - especially when directed at males.<<

Not sure what you are meaning here - who are the males you are referring to?

Again, I would have to say that the essence of prochoice isn't that the foetus has no rights, and that you are misunderstanding what the prochoice view is.


>>...It's difficult to answer I imagine but to be black and white about it, prochoicers tend to say it's all down to the mother each and every time whether anything gets delivered and the chance of a life as if it is not a life at all until then. <<

The first bit is right (that the prochoice view is that it's down to the woman), the second bit isn't ("the chance of a life as if it is not a life at all until then"). Personally I think that there are many stages that you can say a foetus attains levels of awareness. Pregnancy is afterall a growth process. I think that any death of a foetus is just that - a death. As such I consider a foetus a life from conception.

Many women who have abortions choose to honour the foetus with ceremony as an acknowledgement of the passed life.

You seem to have some pretty strong beliefs about what 'prochoice' means. I'd be interested to know how you have developped those beliefs if you feel like sharing.

Can I also ask a favour? Can you please use paragraphing in your posts, as I find long blocks of text quite difficult to read. Thanks.

~~~

My questions recently about when, from an antiabortion view, the removal of the foetus is considered an abortion _were_ based on wondering about contraceptions like the IUD.

Interestingly IUD insertion can be used as emergency contraception for up to 7 days after intercourse, which possibly suggests that IUDs also interfer with implantation once it has happened (I think implantation happens within a few days of conception).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3632169.stm

Please dont comment on this immediately there are other links on the side of the page, with more information I think this could make an interesting debate.

Not that this thread isnt already.

one love

Okay, blicky - you start!

az

hmmm, I think it will be pretty difficult to have a debate about that particular abortion because we don't actually know what happened.

I read the related bbc articles btw. There isn't much information there.

I'll be interested to see what happens with the case though. The police sought medical/legal advice a few years ago and decided not to prosecute. The news this week is that the curate is seeking a review of that decision.

ooops, was reading the wrong page.

Novemeber 2003 the curate asked for a review of the decision. This week the police have been required to reopen the investigation.

Regarding the case re cleft palate; I severely doubt that was the sole reason for termination in this case.

However, a cleft palate sometimes does not occur on its own, but in conjuntion with other anomalies - such as cardiac malformations and ano-rectal malformations. The finding of one abnormality should prompt a search for others.

For instance, a velocardialfacial syndrome - a very rare abnormality of chromosome 22 presents with cardiac malformations, cleft lip and palate as well as severe learning difficulties and jaw abnormailities, with other rarer features.

For more information on this - http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/velocario.asp

On a slightly irreverent note, if I may.

One must always take into account the media's effectiveness in oversimplifying any issue - though it may be reported as 'abortion due to cleft palate' which is the wrong terminology in any case (ToP), but velocardiofacial (VCFS) syndrome would ruin the aesthetics of a front page tabloid anyhow

Stay ,
WD

Thanks WD, that pretty much sums up what I was thinking.

The curate is the only person so far to say that the ToP happened because of a cleft palate. Not sure how this works in the UK, but if it were NZ neither the doctors involved or the hospital would be allowed to comment on the medical details of the case.

I doubt that the police would either, unless it became a criminal prosecution and then they couldn't comment until the the case had been resolved (where the court had determined what information could be released).

So I suspect there will be a bit of a wait until we get meaningful information.

I agree that the media tend to oversimplify things. But I expect better of the BBC. They could easily have outlined the limits on obtaining information. The responses from the hospital and the poilce should have said this at least.

As it stands the article was misleading, inferring that the ToP happened solely because of cleft palate (which although highly unlikely is possible. But its still speculation).

It is well known that its not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket when choosing sources for infoormation as this case once agains showed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A2408889

Two things come out of this case for me one is the underlying pro-life argument, whcich to my mind is settled by the way we actually treat children. Taking away the choice of women to kill these innocent, cute bundles of joy so that we can force their mothers to bring them into a world infested with teenage drug abuse, blighted by child neglect and abuse simply because that's what God wants is dogmatic and therefore thoughtless. Gauranteeing the legal rights of unborn children to live in an age where we are drowning in our own waste is extremely shortsighted.

The focus of this case is not on that but on quality of life. Where exactly do we draw the line? Lefties have a hard time, so do black children, girls have a longer life expectancy but suffer more sexual predation and lower social status. There are many negative and harmful aspects to very basic things about any of us. Racism and sexism are wrong. The structural problems lefties face goes unnoticed by most of us would it be feasible or wanted for parents to weed out children who would suffer because of such things? Would we be right to effectively screen out those who might be burdens to the state in some way say babies who are addicted to crack with their higher than noraml tendecy to suffer mental problems?

My personal view like that of the Reverend who is bringing this case is that we should try hard to accomodate different peoples individual needs. That society has no business meddling in eugenics by filtering out children it does not want through termination. Where I differ from the Reverend joanna Jeppson (as I read her views) is that I think individually mothers should have that choice and that legally we should only set limits on what cannot be used as a reason for termination. I know that more concrete definitions of what is a "serious disability" will be set over this case but hard and fast rules often do not make things easy for individuals with different considerationd and circumstances.

An important related issue when such terminations are allowed is how those who do have disabilaties feel about terminations for these reasons. The reverend her self was born with a similar condition to the terminated child in the case she is pushing through. Also how society it self comes to view diversity of ability. I think this is an important issue, but I cant help thinking that this case has more to do with erroding the right of women to choose.


one love

Well, as has been observed and discussed here - the newspaper article was largely short on facts yet was attempting not to come across as merely sensationalist. But still, it was very sloppy reporting, imo.

As has been pointed out here, a cleft palate can also mean there are far more serious health issues involved, none of which (in the case stated) should be publicly known, this information rightfully belongs only to the woman, her family and her physicians.

No doubt the Reverend making this case has her own personal issues, having a similar problem herself as well as a Down's syndrome sibling.

I remember when I was pregnant thinking that, because of my age (36 at the time), I would probably be urged to have a test done to check if the foetus showed symptoms of Down's syndrome, and that actually kept me awake a few nights wondering if I should even have that sort of test done as I couldn't see ever terminating my pregnancy because of that. And then I found out I had even more to worry about.

It is my understanding that late-term terminations are *only* carried out when there are very serious health risks involved. They make up less than 1% of all terminations performed. President Bush has now outlawed this option for women living in the US. He is thereby either sentencing these women to death or else to live with a terribly damaged child for as long as it is able to live. And, especially in the cases in the US where health care is not freely provided by the state, these women and their families will also have to live with crippling medical costs that they will have to somehow pay for themselves.

I think all of us would agree that there should be very strict controls regarding late-term terminations. But it seems that these are already in place. And they do require constant vigilance to make sure the lines don't become fuzzy.

az