I put this topic under daily life simply because my daily life rotates around radio, more specifically radio four and the World Service. I find some parts of radio four massively irritating: the today programme, this specially gets my thumbs down since I find the precious nature of the journalism particularly patronising. However, one of my favourite programs happens to be the moral maze. Tonight they considered the thorny question of abortion. A disproportionate amount of the program seems to be concentrating on the idea that women are increasingly demanding abortion of female foetuses. On reflection I found that the argument that freedom of choice trumps all else and is therefore overplayed and wrong slightly worrying.
The irony that a woman should freely decide to abort a female fetus because her culture dictates that male foetuses are more desirable says it all. I would be interested to find out if you consider this to be as cut and dried as the media would have us believe.
from an evolutionary biology point of view, the number of males and females stays the same - even in species such as deer where one male has many females. When these practices result in a shortage of females, female babies will become more valuable and the opposite trend will take place.
from an environmental point of view, the fewer women the better as women are the limiting factor for population growth.
from a personal point of view, the thing i regret most in my life - more than all other regrets combined and multiplied by 1000 - is the termination of one of my children. its a choice, but its rarely a good one, no matter what the sex.
from an environmental point of view, the fewer women the better as women are the limiting factor for population growth.
from a personal point of view, the thing i regret most in my life - more than all other regrets combined and multiplied by 1000 - is the termination of one of my children. its a choice, but its rarely a good one, no matter what the sex.
Thank you for the reply. As ever we make a stab in the dark on this web site and sometimes touch a nerve. The whole debate still rests on at what stage the foetus becomes a moral entity. I too have had a termination but was able to convince myself that it was for the best: my body etc.
not a problem, i hope my reply didn't likewise cause anyone hurt.
On principle, in my old age I have come round to being against abortion (but "there but for fortune go you and I"). I totally agree with you Mrs T. I listen to the Moral Maze occasionally but find some of the speakers rather pompous. I avoid Today programme and tune into Radio Scotland am, then Jeremy Vine at midday when I am alone and occasional history programmes. Any Questions has become comedy because the panelists seem out of touch and their answers are dictated by their political parties.
I have to put a word in for melvyn bragg - his radio program In Our Time was the very best. Even if he did occasionally not keep up.
Am a big Bragg fan. At least he attempts the impossible and does achieve a respectable level of intellectual discussion.
At times of severe trembly inside feeling: headphones, bed and radio are the only thing. Of course there are times when even this cannot compete with PD meltdown.
At times of severe trembly inside feeling: headphones, bed and radio are the only thing. Of course there are times when even this cannot compete with PD meltdown.
I see two Australian Philosophers (no bruce jokes please) have suggested that it might be ok to do:
''after-birth abortion'' as long as it is painless, because the baby is not harmed by missing out on a life it cannot conceptualise.
Now they are surprised by a deluge of hate mail. Who would have thought?
''after-birth abortion'' as long as it is painless, because the baby is not harmed by missing out on a life it cannot conceptualise.
Now they are surprised by a deluge of hate mail. Who would have thought?