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

No.

17yearolds have poor impulse control and whats your excuse then

Yes I know you eventually days later apologised. I also know that his anger was no excuse for YOU typing his words. Then in another post you assured me the threat was serious. Obviously I didnt take it seriously.

I dont take anything you say seriously.

one love

Is this really place for this

To go back to topic.. Certainly no..not all with anti-abortionist views are christian or even relgious.. being pagan and a witch, I wouldn't really consider myself to be either..yet I'm what would be called anti abortion..(though I've supported friends through them ) out of respect for life..'An harm it none do as ye will' n all.
Though there are of course circumstances where
it can't be called 'wrong' just 'unfortunate'..such as on medical grounds.

<>

If that's the case, go away then! Have a cup of tea, and a nice lie down. You need it.

Hello, Serephina! I am so glad to hear from you that there *are* (as I knew there must be) anti-abortionists (or as I prefer to call myself, pro-lifers)who are not Christian...

Pro-life prolly is a better term than anti-abortion..I mean it's only when its for no real reason.. as in just not wanting the baby that i find it wrong..some people have to make that difficult choice for other reasons, such as something will be so severely wrong with the baby that it'd have no quality of life,etc. In just not wanting them adoptions always an option..i could never destroy a potentiallly healthy child just because i 'didnt want it' or even couldnt look after at it at that time when there are so many people out there who are desperate to love a child but can't have one.
In any case though I still respect others right to that choice whether I agree with it or not..so yeah..pro-life is definately a better term.

Im pro-life. I think life is a good thing. I also belive in a woman's right to chose and that society should support women whatever path they choose.

"It takes on man and a woman to make a baby but it takes a village to raise a child"



What "pro-life" in the way that it is popularly used boils down to is anti-choice. Sure they want to see women carry their children to term. So do i and even Doctors who perform terminations do, but we also respect a womans right to chose and dont decide that we know better and have the right to take away their choices.

one love

Even in the times when kids were executed for stealing something to eat when they were starving, unborn children were given the right to life. They wouldn't hang pregnant women.

Although I agree with the right to chose, I find abortion as a form of birth control extremely distressing, and even when it's for medical reasons I find it hard to cope with (although the people I know who have had abortions don't know I feel like this, it would be wrong to show my feelings at a time like that). Certainly if someone kills an unborn child it should be considered the same as killing a newborn baby (except when the mother consents to the abortion - don't want to sound like one of those weirdos who hang around outside clinics shouting' murder!').

I'm not a christian either - I think that pagan would be closest, although I ddon't believe in any form of god.

Serephina, Mina et al,

When I talk about anti-aborionists I am not talking about people who personally hold a pro-life stance and believe that abortion is wrong. I'm talking about anti-choice people who attempt to force their beliefs onto others and want to see all elective terminations ended.

So it is still true to say that I haven't yet met an anti-abortionist who was not religious. Please note (Della) that I said 'religious' and not 'Christian'.

My personal stance is pro-life for myself and pro-choice for others.


az

"Please note (Della) that I said 'religious' and not 'Christian'."

You should realise by now Az that Della does let "truth" and "the facts" get in the way of what she wants to say... Tut tut tut...

<> [Della]

<>
[Azahar]

<>
[Della]

In that case, Della, I don't think you've understood what this court case is about.

No-one is disputing that Mrs Vo has been the victim of a terrible mistake. There can be differing views about how best to respond to the mistake, but in the absence of detailed medical knowledge and the absence of in-depth information about how the mistake happened, it's difficult to judge the culpability of the doctor. But what's not in doubt is that a terrible mistake was made.

No-one is making light of what happened to Mrs Vo, no-one is saying that she can have no complaint, no-one is saying that she hasn't been greviously wronged.

The case is about whether or not Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to life) covers foetueses or not. That's all. And the court found that it doesn't. As I said earlier, it was not intended to cover foetuses when it was drawn up, and so it would be a perverse ruling to find otherwise. The doctor is not guilty of manslaughter (or the French equivalent), but this doesn't mean that he's guilty of nothing. Nothing in this ruling belittles or dismisses the fact that medical negligence happened, and that Mrs Vo was wronged, and to argue that it does is just to misunderstand completely what the judgment is about.

Those who genuinely believe that no-one should be allowed have a legal abortion should make their case in the political arena and try to attract support through the democratic process to have laws changed, not fight hopeless court cases in the hope of subverting the rule of law and overruling the democratic process.

There's no doubt whatsoever that the verdict in this case is 100% legally correct according to the laws and the EU convention as it stands. Anyone who doubts this just hasn't understood. It's possible to think that the court's decision wasn't *morally* correct, but that's a different matter.

It does seem to me that the ruling that a foetus is not covered under the right to life makes it seem like the foetus is kind of worthless. So if somebody hit a pregnant woman in the stomach causing her to loose her child, should he not be considered guilty of murder of some kind?

>> There's no doubt whatsoever that the verdict in this case is 100% legally correct according to the laws and the EU convention as it stands.

Which brings me back to my first question, which was to ask why Mrs Vo's lawyers chose to challeng based on the human rights of the foetus, and not on administrative and medical negligence by the hospital and the doctor.

Administrative negligence is actually one of the scariest things. A friend of mine had a doppelganger with the exact same name (common surname, unuusal first name) and more or less the same age. They were both in for very different gynie work at the John Radcliff at the same time. Fortunately for both of them, they both speek English.

B

azahar, that's because of *your* definition of pro-life!

Otto, I'll answer your other points later, (cos it's late here) but just to say quickly, I am *not* Della! Some people insist on using an old nickname, because they know I don't like them doing it. PLease address me as Adelaide, pretty please!

What is, Della?


az

THe thing is is that the position of anti-abortion/pro-life camp is not one of a uniform commitment to the sanctity of human life (whilst that may be your position Della) it actually encompasses a large range of beliefs including those who are fervantly pro death penalty for instance.

The uniform characteristic of this group is the opposition to abortion. Consequently it seems logical to me to name the group anti-abortion rather than pro life.

"just to say quickly, I am *not* Della! Some people insist on using an old nickname, because they know I don't like them doing it. PLease address me as Adelaide, pretty please!"

Apologies - I didn't realise....

'S okay, Otto...

<>

Exactly!

I take your point, Otto, that the court's ruling was *legally* correct, but it gave me to worry, about the moral aspects, and the effect on Mrs Vo.

"about the moral aspects"

You do realise that if your "moral" case is take Della it means a complete ban on elective terminations. For me the court got it spot on.