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

"should make people think further than the woman is the only one who should decide to give life or not."

I agree entirely - I think the man (i.e. the father) should have the right to demand an abortion, OR the right to prevent one happening. Certainly one or the other. At the moment, they have neither.

I don't think the father should have the right to *demand* an abortion- it is a risky medical procedure and could do damage to the mother, so I don't think it should be possible for such a procedure to be foreced on her against her will.

But as for the father having a right to prevent an abortion, I can certainly see the merits of that, but I'm unsure whether I entirely agreewith it yet. i'll have to have a think about that.

Member - you are not agreeing with me entirely. I was not inferring the father has the right to demand an abortion. I am not in favour of elective abortions.

CS,

<>

I wonder how much of the backlog you have read and why you continue to set up straw man arguments.

Not one person on this thread has *ever* said that the foetus is not alive, is not 'a life'. However, opinions vary as to when a foetus becomes a sentient human life. Some believe this occurs at conception, others after the organs have developed, etc, all of which is strictly personal opinion.

<>

As with all personal opinions there is rarely a very clear notion of 'right and wrong'.

<>

If you had checked the link you had asked me to re-post for you regarding global abortion laws you would have seen that in the UK an elective termination is legal within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. There is an additional factor in the case of 'foetal impairment', which presumably would be the factor taken into consideration for a later term termination.

<>

Again, many links have been posted here showing that after twelve weeks there must be medical grounds for a termination. If you can find one that says otherwise I will gladly read it.

Meanwhile, I am sure it was a distressing film to watch since you are now pregnant. But if I may suggest, before you make further comments like this one: <> you should take into consideration that whatever your opinion on elective terminations, that nobody is going to argue with your right to have them.

You are welcome to your opinion. But attempting to force your opinion onto others in the very real sense of affecting their personal life choices is *not* your or anyone else's right, imho.

If you believe a five-week old foetus is a 'human' that deserves rights then you have the personal right to never have a termination. But imagine if all terminations were made illegal and you suddenly had a problem whereby going through with a pregnancy would surely kill you.

There are so many different reasons women choose to terminate a pregnancy that it is impossible to come up with any fairer law than to allow *her* and only her to make this choice.

az

Anyone got any spare hair? I dont *need* any hair to make myself a nice lifelike wig but it would boost my self confidence to have a wig made of real human hair.

Go on give us some of yours, its a pianless procedure and unless the barbers had a few too many at lunch time not dangerous in the least procedure. In a few years you will have grown more back than I want.


Bone marrow Im not sure i will need some of that, but blod is fairly necessary I tend to have a serious accident every four or five years and Im getting a motorbike again soon. So its odds on that it'll come in handy.

Now these are two fairly simple procedures and can mean the difference between life and death so come on spare a guy some easily replaceable products


A kidney, now I could really use a kidney go on give me one of yours you've got two. OK the op to extract yours will involve a little danger, but most people do live and whats a scar between friends eh?

Come on just one kidney. Sure theres no guarantee things will work out after the transplant but isnt it worth the risk when you think about me frolicking about with my one careful owner internal organ?


Your womb I dont want it just the use of it for nine months. OK there might be some minor inconvienience to you, but who likes running about doing sport

Plus if you like being healthy what better incentive to give up booze, fags and drugs. I'll raise a glass tou your abstinence when I "wet the babies head".

On the subject of drugs they all sorts of wonderful drugs to help the anemia, morning sickness, water retention, but you'll get to know that when your sat watching daytime TV OK I'll buy you some DVDs ok

Your carreer might be interfered with but balance that against the joy of me bringing up a child that you dont want anyway.

It will hurt a bit but they have alsorts of other wonderful drugs as pain relief and if worst come to the worst they will give you a C-section.

Scar? I thought we'don the whats a scar between friends bit. Are you really going to let your vanity come between me and happiness? Besides people wont be able to tell it from the stretch marks anyway.

Alright it will affect you health to somne degree during gestation and theres a likelihood of PND that can result in suicide, but look on the brightside, I'll be happy

Yes you might die, well we've all got to go sometime, why dont you stop thinking of yourself and give me what I want?

But even if you do do die you be a healthy corpse with a nice smile because of the nine months of free dental care and prescriptions.



If there are no laws governing the donation of any other body parts why should people be expected to lend their life and body to someone else for nine months?

one love

Egon,

<>

Think *very* long and hard about that one. Then answer whether a doctor or a priest should also have this same right. To decide when a woman should reproduce. Imagine an abusive partner deciding that he wants his wife or girlfriend to continue with an unwanted pregnancy because *he* wants this child. Think about all the possibilities. Think about how a loving partner would never want his wife or girlfriend to suffer an unwanted pregnancy solely for his benefit. So then, what sort of person would do this? And would you want to see this sort of person have the law backing them up?

az

I agree entirely - I think the man (i.e. the father) should have the right to demand an abortion, OR the right to prevent one happening. Certainly one or the other. At the moment, they have neither.

Personally as a man myself and for others who are men I'd like to see us bestowed with the ability to demand children of our own, but as a large part of the business involves other people doing the unpleasant parts of child production i think we have to respect their liberties.

So to the other bit I turn my sleep deprived mind.

Should we be able to demand terminations?

Well in short (because father ted is on in a bit) yes but only if your sperm was stolen without your knowledge and completely against your wishes. In the normal course of things you have the choice of avoiding women you dont want to sprog with. The urge to get sweaty is strong, so I tell the young men (and women) I work with "no glove, no love".

one love

"Does a foetus have more rights than its mother?"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1201526,00.html


"In the name of foetal rights, women across the US have been dragged bleeding from hospitals into prison cells hours after giving birth, charged with homicide following stillbirths, pinned to hospital beds and forced to have Caesareans against their will, or had their babies removed at birth after a single positive test for alcohol or drugs."

hi CS,

I came across this article this morning that backs up what you said about the legal time limit in the UK being under 24 weeks.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/news/0,8363,1202954,00.html

"Next month the High Court will hear a landmark case challenging two doctors' decision to grant an abortion because the baby had a cleft palate. Judges will rule on what constitutes a severe enough handicap to end pregnancy, and on whether a baby of 24 weeks - the current legal limit for abortion unless there is serious abnormality - has a right to life independent from its mother's rights."

However, the article also pointed out that one of the the reasons that women end up having terminations after ten weeks is due to the long waits for NHS appointments. Hence, they are talking about training nurses to perform elective terminations within the first trimestre.

az

Hi everyone.


I've been sporadically lurking this thread for some time now - I'll post soon when I've caught up with some backlog.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3671623.stm :-

Sort of happy ending to the news story that started the resurection of this thread.

Thanks FB. It sounds like she was _very_ fortunate to get the judge that she did.

LSF - welcome to the thread I look forward to your posts.

Az, I've had a quick look at the links, will comment in due course

hi FB,

Yes, a 'happy ending' for something that might have turned out to be a total abuse of the law. That woman needs help, not imprisonment!


Kea and Leopardskin,

Looking forward to your comments.

az

"But he also said it was a "travesty" that people with problems like Ms Rowland had not been offered treatment. He said she had "fallen through the cracks"."

All to often the Criminal Justice system seems too look only to punish people without looking at the wider picture. People with mental health problems are so often left to "Fall trough the cracks". When they do and they then do something "wrong" the general populace and media seem only to bay for blood; forgetting how they came to be in the situation where they do these things in the first place.

To be honest, FB, whenever I see these people who have 'fallen through the cracks' I truly have a sense of 'there but for the Grace of God . . .'

You see, where I came from, I could very easily be that woman. And I have no idea why I am not.

No, you cannot ever use an unhappy background as an excuse for inexcusable behaviour, but it has also been said that one can judge how advanced a society is by seeing how it treats its less fortunate citizens.

This woman had clearly been used by the 'Christian right' in an attempt to make a sensational case against a woman's right to choose when and how she will reproduce. And I am very happy to see that true justice was done in her case.

az

No, you cannot ever use an unhappy background as an excuse for inexcusable behaviour, but it has also been said that one can judge how advanced a society is by seeing how it treats its less fortunate citizens.

If what has been written about her is true I think "unhappy" is a massive understatement, confusing and damaging might better describe her background. Maybe her background may not excuse her actions but it should certainly excuse her any punishment. It looks a clear cut case to me that treatment and/or education would be a much better "sentence" than any jail time or punitive fine.

one love

Half the problem is that policy makers so often have no time for "treatment" when it comes to "crime". The cry of the right wing Daily Mail brigade is always "Hangings too good for 'em".

Treatment, re-habilitation and support are expensive an often seen by middle class people (who all politicians desparately want to please) un-necessary and perhaps even unfair. "Why should my tax money go to helping criminal sort their lives out" is the cry....

And in so long as it is so many people with continue to "Slip through the cracks"

True, sad to say so many people think about punishemnt first without realising their need for revenge does little to solve the problems we will continue to share until we make the effort to cure them.

Shame isn't it.

It truly is amazing how much people love vengence. The state prosecutes because of "injury" done to it. The punishments rendered last much longer than the sentence. The damage done to the defendent(guilty or innocent) is often much worse than that done to the victim. Most criminal cases that go before a judge are not anything as final as death, as marked by the women jailed for having drugs or alchohol in their bloodstream when the babay was born healthy (no harm done at all) yet now the woman has had the following happen to her. Jail, a horrific event in itself. But, it is the collateral damage from jail that kills you.

It is the time lost from work (at a job that you have now lost) from family from life. It is the costs that have racked up to deleiver a fatal fiscal blow. It is the fact that you now carry a criminal record that really kills you. You will be denied from so much in life. An entire lifetimes worth of achievment will be ignored by potential employers by a few lines from the courthouse. For the rest of your life you are branded. You wear a stigma that prevents you from ever going back into society fully.

People act shocked when they find out that people that have been to jail are more likely to go back than those who have not. They assume it is simply because that criminals are the ones that go to jail and that jail is not harsh enough to deter them from crime. Therefore punishment must get more severe. Ignore the fact that the labels that the first convictions gave the person are enough to prevent a normal life. Ever wonder how many innocent people get branded by being prosecuted for something false or stupid and have no choices left in respectable society?