# RU486 - so called "abortion pill"



## Julia (9 February 2006)

The Senate today decided in favour of the Private Members Bill advocating RU486 distribution decisions be removed from the Minister of Health to the TGA.  I hope a similar decision is made when the Bill goes to the House of Representatives.

The 7,.30 Report this evening showed grabs of various politicians in the Senate giving their reasons why they were voting for and against.  Essentially, most of the women voted for and some obvious men (e.g. Tony Abbott whose views are well known) voted against.

This forum consists of, if I've perceived it correctly, a majority of blokes.

I'd be really interested to know from everyone who takes an interest in this subject how you would have voted if you'd been a Senator today.

I find it incredible that so many men who obviously don't have any understanding of what it can be like to be faced with an unwanted pregnancy, can be so bloody patronising in stating blandly that they just don't believe in abortion.  It would be a different story if they actually had to go through the pregnancy and take responsibility for caring for the child afterwards.  Tony Abbott even had the effrontery to suggest that the change of approvals from himself to the TGA for RU486 would probably result in a huge increase in backyard abortions!  The medication has to be prescribed by a doctor, for heavens' sake.  As Amanda Vanstone pointed out, no one is suggesting women will be able to rock up on into their local supermarket, buy a couple of packets and rock on out to the desert and take the pills miles away from any medical assistance should that become necessary.
 Surely this drug would be  a preferable means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy to having to undergo a surgical abortion.

I'd be really interested to hear the views of members, male and female on this apparently controversial subject, and also the question to the blokes:

:"Do you think it should be a woman's right to choose what she does when faced with an unexpected pregnancy?"

Julia


----------



## wayneL (9 February 2006)

Oh Julia! Another hot potatoe!  I'm out here!!!

<========= exit, stage left <=====================


----------



## Bobby (9 February 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> The Senate today decided in favour of the Private Members Bill advocating RU486 distribution decisions be removed from the Minister of Health to the TGA.  I hope a similar decision is made when the Bill goes to the House of Representatives.
> 
> The 7,.30 Report this evening showed grabs of various politicians in the Senate giving their reasons why they were voting for and against.  Essentially, most of the women voted for and some obvious men (e.g. Tony Abbott whose views are well known) voted against.
> 
> ...




Hullo Julia,
Yes it is a womans right to terminate.

Don't you wish all those richard Cranums had been !  

Bob.


----------



## clowboy (10 February 2006)

First up....


If you think it is a "womans" problem and blokes should but out etc then not to sure why you are asking all us blokes, but.....

While I am firmly against abortion.....


It is a womans god given RIGHT to make the decsion (this can become a problem in the fact that it takes two to tango - and the mans rights can be taken away from him by the woman.

The question to me is really about making it easier for people to do something that I consider morally wrong.

That said....where there is a will there is a way and taking away someone's right only helps to aggrivate all those involved.

At the end of the day I am thankful that I do not have to make such a tough decision and I cannot say how I would vote without serious thought.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 February 2006)

It's a complex issue IMO and not one which should be decided by party politics. A conscience vote is definately appropriate on this one.

I am not opposed to abortion as such. There is certainly a valid argument about human life being valuable, but then how far does one take this? Is a woman who is not constantly pregnant (whether married or not) guilty of denying some unborn child the right to exist? Is a man who refuses to enable such things to occur also guilty, even if he has never met the woman before? It's causing the loss of a potential human life after all. What about those who argue for no sex before marriage? Are they not directly arguing for losing the opportunity to create a human life? Lots of issues here and I could argue that the conservative moral view is taking both sides at once.

In that context I don't see that terminating a pregnancy is overly different to not causing one in the first place provided that it is done in a medically / scientifically appropriate manner. It's one less person alive either way.  

On the other hand there is the moral argument about saving existing human life and that the unborn child is already an existing life. We go to extraordinarly lengths to save the life of adults far beyond the level which could be justified on pure medical, scientific or economic grounds. Why not treat unborn children the same way? But then why not treat an unfertilised egg the same way...

Overall there is no shortage of people on this planet. Indeed the population continues to rapidly increase at a time when the negative effects of this on resource use, environment etc. are becomming increasingly obvious. It is a fact that the level of food production required to feed the current population has NEVER been achieved without heavy reliance on petrochemicals and other mineral inputs including aquifer (ground water) drawdown and consumption of natural gas and phospate rock (as fertilizers). With present technology the world's population is literally eating non-renewable resouces. The question is when, not if, this must end since no serious scientist or geologist doubts that such mineral resouces are ultimately limited. The debate is about how much we have, not that it is limited.

So I can't see any case, apart from the operation of the banking system which is a human construct which could be changed, which argues that the world actually needs a higher population. Indeed there is evidence that either we need radical technology improvement or a _lower_ world population. This situation of resource limits is no different to that applying to any other species and indeed humans go as far as to actively kill adult members of other species to limit their population in recognition of this reality. Either limit numbers or the whole lot faces a lack of food once the stocks are eaten.

And so I take the scientific view. I am not opposed to abortion provided it is done in a manner which does not cause suffering to the unborn child. I acknowledge that there is debate about this point. That said, I certainly don't propose that abortion be used as a population control method despite mention of the issues there. That is simply a reason to not oppose it IMO rather than a reason to encourage it.

I certainly do believe in many Christian principles although I am not an active church goer. I do not believe that the Bible proscribes specific inflexible actions but rather general principles. Different people have different interpretations there. One of those responsibilties IMO is to future generations and hence the population issue. There is also a responsibility to prevent suffering. Under present attitudes in society an unwanted pregnancy does induce suffering on the part of the mother and in many cases father. Of course it could be argued that both had an opportunity to avoid it in the first place, but then that also represents a loss of a potential human life. If we have every woman constantly pumping out children then we're going to end up in serious trouble with population numbers...

Complex issues. Wilst I am not opposed to abortion I do have some concerns that this drug may not be the best means of doing it. Various reports I have heard (though I haven't seriously studied the subject) indicate that medical outcomes are somewhat worse than a surgical abortion in terms of risk.

To my understanding the drug also has other non-abortion uses under some circumstances.

How would I have voted? Personally I would want to know more about the issues of this drug versus surgical abortion as I don't think that has been properly considered in a debate which has focused heavily on moral issues. To me they are separate. The moral issue is whether or not to allow abortion in the first place and that has already been decided. The medical issue, the proper subject of this debate IMO, is how to perform abortions given that they are already legal. Completely different issues. If on medical grounds the drug is an appropriate means of performing an abortion then I am in favour of it, I not then I oppose it. I don't have sufficient information there but certainly think that science is the proper basis for a decision. I am, however, certainly in favour of it's use for other purposes to the extent that they exist provided that normal drug assessment proceedures determines safety etc.

With regard to this being a woman's issue, I would argue that there are two parents of any child. In a majority of cases that I have become aware of where there is dispute between parents about having children, it is the woman who wants the child and in general this is for purely economic reasons. Very sad but true and I suspect that most would know of at least one case of a woman using pregnancy as a means of gaining financial advantage. Very sad and totally immoral in my opinon but there is too much evidence to deny that it happens. Indeed I see that as a more serious moral issue worthy of debate than whether or not to introduce this drug (since abortion is already a legal proceedure and this is simply about the means). Suffice to say that I have serious concerns about the raising of children in single parent families where their reason for being is economic. .

Does a woman have a right to terminate? IMO yes. But where there is clear evidence that the woman has intentionally fallen pregnant for economic reasons I believe that the father also ought to have the right to request that the pregnancy be terminated. The law views that the child has two parents and if one parent has already acted in a manner not conducive to the long term wellbeing of the child then I believe that the other parent, either the father in this case or the mother in other cases, ought to have the right to make such decisions. On the other hand, if it is accepted that it is the woman's decision to make then I contend that the law ought to state that the mothher, not the father, is responsible for the child in all respects. It seems incredibly unjust to have responsibility shared but only one parent having authority on the matter. That is morally wrong in terms of the effects on adults IMO.  For the record, my own mother was never married and I have no ongoing contact with my father. Importantly however, there was no money involved since my mother shares the view that whoever has authority also has absolute responsibility.

As a closing comment, I am very aware that this is a highly controversial topic. I have stated my views and am willing to debate them in a sensible manner but no hatred on the forum please. You have a right to your views and I have a right to mine. As adults we should be able to agree to disagree but still have an intelligent discussion on the subject.


----------



## Bobby (10 February 2006)

Well Smurf,
That was deep well done, I did'nt like all of it but good for you to have the guts to say it !.

I used to send $$ to the impoerished once, but stuff all $bucks ever get through to them , corruption is excepted as a normal thing ?.
As soon as they get a feed the bonking starts again ( no thought of contraception ) .

Bob.


----------



## Duckman#72 (10 February 2006)

Hi All

The primary question that needs to be answered is - "Is it safe?" All the moral and religious aspects are IMO secondary. 

I believe a woman has the absolute right to make the decision.

I agree with Smurfs conclusion but not all of his arguments. He has raised some interesting (some might say bizarre) concepts. I have never heard of the argument that a couple who believe in abstaining in sex before marriage are denying the life of a child. LOL's!!   

Duckman


----------



## wayneL (10 February 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> Hi All
> 
> The primary question that needs to be answered is - "Is it safe?"




Well it seems to be a pretty nasty drug

http://www.ru486facts.org/index.cfm?page=sideeffects



> Adverse Events and Side Effects
> 
> * An Overview of Adverse Events and Side Effects
> * Pelvic Infections
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 February 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> I have never heard of the argument that a couple who believe in abstaining in sex before marriage are denying the life of a child. LOL's!!
> 
> Duckman



Agreed that it's an unusual argument. But at the end of the day the effect of abstaining from sex is ultimately the same as abortion - fewer people on the planet. If nobody has sex, the species eventually dies out completely. If every woman has 10 children, how can we possibly feed them all? Just contemplate what a 50 or so fold increase in all resource use over 2 generations would involve. They are the extremes of course.

I just find it interesting that the decision to reproduce (or not) tends to be viewed very differently by the same people depending on how it is achieved. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with those views though I find them somewhat contradictory since the general argument against abortion is along the lines of the potential that is lost. The old "What if some famous person had been aborted? We wouldn't have discovered this or done that if they had been aborted.". But it's the exact same result if they hadn't been conceived in the first place and yet that is viewed very differently, even positively, by the same people.

As I said, not agreeing or disagreeing with it, just observing. Very complex subject which will probably never go away.


----------



## macca (10 February 2006)

Hi all,

If they are going to make it "only available with a prescription", then it really is only a less invasive way of doing what they already do isn't it ?

If so, might as well make it available, same result, less cost to us, less trauma for the woman, a big drama over something that doesn't really change anything.

Passionate people wanting to impose their beliefs on others, seems to me that is how most of the worlds problems start


----------



## bullmarket (10 February 2006)

Morning everyone 

Julia - regardless of whether this controversial abortion drug is safe to use or not the bigger issue is whether or not it should be used at all.

My view is that unless a pregnancy can be shown to be a direct threat to the life of the mother, which is the only situation under which terminating the pregnancy could be considered, *then terminating a pregnancy is nothing short of cold blooded murder.*

I get the impression that those supporting abortion hide behind the misconception that an embryo is somehow less of a human being than you or I or anyone else.  An embryo is just as alive as you and I and has a soul just like you and I and everyone else. The only difference is that an embryo is at a very much earlier stage of physical development.  Apart from that there is no difference.

Maybe try thinking of it this way - an indisputable fact is that you and I and everyone else were all embryos at one stage of our lives and if your mother or the mother of anyone else reading this post had decided to have an abortion for whatever reason while pregnant with you then none of you would be here today reading this post.

bullmarket..


----------



## visual (10 February 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> abstaining from sex is ultimately the same as abortion - fewer people on the planet.




Smurf,imo what horrifys people about abortion is the taking of a human life,so not creating one is hardly like destroying one


----------



## bullmarket (10 February 2006)

Hi Julia



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> ...........I'd be really interested to hear the views of members, male and female on this apparently controversial subject, and also the question to the blokes:
> 
> :"Do you think it should be a woman's right to choose what she does when faced with an unexpected pregnancy?"
> 
> Julia




I forgot to answer your question before.

Personally, I think you are asking the wrong question because of course a woman, hopefully in consultation with the baby's father, can choose what to do if faced with an unexpected pregnancy for whatever reason.

But imo, for the reasons I expressed in my earlier post, the choices available do not include aborting the pregnancy, again except for the very exceptional circumstances in my earlier post.

I guess the real intent of your question is do us 'blokes' support a woman having the choice of abortion.

Put me down as a *NO* for the reasons in my earlier post.

Well, that's my   worth...

cheers.

bullmarket


----------



## Happy (10 February 2006)

Let’s not forget that population explosion is likely to be a global problem at some stage, so voluntary control is logical opposed to controlled control like in China for example.

Of course natural check as pandemic or artificial check as conflict can do the same trick.


----------



## Prospector (10 February 2006)

Hi Julia
As a female I can only assert that it is the woman's choice to determine the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy.  While some posters assert that abortion should only be performed if there is a physical risk to the mother's life, this totally ignores any other impact an unwanted pregancy has on her life - such as her mental health.  Not to mention changing the course of her life for the next 18 years.

As abortion is legal in Australia, then RU486 offers an alternative method of achieving this, and is less invasive than surgical intervention.  The risks of surgical intervention including the use of anaesthetics is much higher than the use of this drug.  

Why Mr Abbott is bringing himself personally into this debate is beyond me.  As I have just heard Julia Guillard state, this debate is not about him, it is a medical choice.  Why it was ever effectively 'banned' is beyond me, actually I do know, it was a deal done with Harradine in order to gain his vote on something else.  Nothing like women's health becoming a commodity in politics.


----------



## aobed (10 February 2006)

Wow, hot potato Julia.  The last thing I expected when joining a sharemarket forum was such an open discussion about this topic .  However, I think it's great to be able to voice an opinion and discuss such a complex issue.  Thank you for raising the question.

As stated by some other people who have posted before me, I believe that it is the woman's right whether she chooses to take a course of action that aborts a child.  That clearly is a very difficult position for a female to find herself in and she should be supported by the provision of all possible options available.

As we live in a society that supports the rights for the individual, the moral questions surrounding this pill should be left to the individual.  After all, it will be her (and possibly her partner, etc) that will have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives.  

The morals by which we choose to live our lives are choices made by us.  Whether this is learnt by our parents, social environment, religion or faith.  Ultimately this is a choice and that choice should be governed by the individual and not dictated by the ideology of politicans.

Personally, I do not believe I could encourage my partner or a family member to undertake taking this pill.  I does not sit well with me.  But it is easy for me to say that from an idealistic point of view.  There are circumstances (such as rape) in which this course of action may be warranted.  However, I do respect the right of the individual in making the decision for themselves.


----------



## visual (10 February 2006)

Prospector,
you say as abortion is legal in Australia...............

as far as I`m aware abortion is legal under certain circumstances,not as a birth control method.

unfortunately too often thats exactly what its used for.


----------



## son of baglimit (10 February 2006)

julia - you stole my thunder - i was gonna start a thread on this topic, but got lost in my eddie mcguire thing - oh well.

MY POINT OF VIEW

RELIGION HAS "NO" PLACE IN MAKING DECISIONS FOR "ALL" AUSTRALIANS - ABBOTT HAS HIS VIEW - GOOD LUCK TO HIM - BUT HE CANNOT USE THAT VIEW TO FORCE A POLICY DECISION ON ANY OF US - AS FOR THE OTHERS DONT BE SURPRISED THAT THEY ARE ONLY PREACHING THE LINE OF THEIR LOUDEST CONSTITUENTS.

IF ANYONE DIDNT SEE THE 7.30 REPORT LAST NIGHT, YOU'D SWEAR ABBOTT WAS READING STRAIGHT FROM AN AUTOCUE - HIS WORDS WERE VERY STRUCTURED, HE WAS CLEARLY UPSET WITH THE LINE OF QUESTIONS PUT TO HIM, MAINLY BECAUSE HE HAD NO ANSWER - THEY STUCK IT RIGHT UP HIM. I LOVED HIS ANSWERS TO THE 'BACKYARD MISCARRIAGE' COMMENTS - HE HAD NONE.

GOODBYE ABBOTT - TAKE YOUR OPINIONS AND SHOVE EM.


----------



## bullmarket (10 February 2006)

hi Prospector 



			
				Prospector said:
			
		

> Hi Julia
> As a female I can only assert that it is the woman's choice to determine the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy.  While some posters assert that abortion should only be performed if there is a physical risk to the mother's life, this totally ignores any other impact an unwanted pregancy has on her life - such as her mental health.  Not to mention changing the course of her life for the next 18 years.
> 
> As abortion is legal in Australia, then RU486 offers an alternative method of achieving this, and is less invasive than surgical intervention.  The risks of surgical intervention including the use of anaesthetics is much higher than the use of this drug.
> ...




You are obviously including my and other peoples' responses to Julia's original post, so please let me ask you this question *(and please don't take it as a personal attack as I respect other peoples' views but I also have strong views of my own)* as I am interested in how people view this scenario:

Given my view as expressed earlier that the human life of an embryo/unborn child call him/her what you will, is just as important, valid and relevant as your life and my and everyone else's life, then how is aborting a pregnancy any less cold blooded murder than if someone in the street walked up to you, me or anyone else out of the blue and shot us dead?

Sure, some pro-abortionists can try to argue that for some reason an unborn child/embryo is somehow less of a human being (for medical, physical or whatever reasons suit their arguments) but that is simply not true imo.  Using an unborn child's physical or mental disability to justify aborting the pregnancy is just as ludicrous and unjustifiable as terminating the life of say a 5 year old that becomes severely mentally or physically handicapped for whatever reason.

Obviously, some pregnancies will have occured as a result of severely traumatic physical and emotional events, but even those circumstances do not justify *anyone *   (male or femal) taking it upon themselves to play "God" and decide for themselves who lives and dies.

Imo at the end of the day the unborn child has just as much right to life as you and I and everyone else regardless of how traumatic the events leading to conception may have been or the physical/mental state of the unborn child.

As I said in my original post, if the mother of anybody reading this post had decided to have an abortion for whatever reason when she was pregnant with you, then you would not be here today reading this post....it's as simple as that...

cheers...

bullmarket

btw.....I am against capital punishment as well, but that's another whole new ball game and please don't get me started


----------



## dutchie (10 February 2006)

macca said:
			
		

> Passionate people wanting to impose their beliefs on others, seems to me that is how most of the worlds problems start





Unfortunately Macca this is the crux of  *all* the worlds problems.

Catholics (Abbott in this topic), Christians, Muslims, communists, socialists, Maoists, Japanese whalers etc etc


----------



## son of baglimit (10 February 2006)

bullmarket - 1 question - HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO RAISE A DISABLED CHILD.

while my situation isnt severe and we coped pretty well, i truly hate to think of the lives some people are forced to cope with, either because they couldnt get the pregnancy terminated for medical reasons, or the zealots out there got in their ear and gave them a false sense of life once the child was born.

as i said, my situation isnt too bad, we have coped, but the disability is mild - those with severely disabled children i cannot envy one bit - yes some cope, but some are close to doing themselves in every day because it is just too hard - no friends, no support, (the stories the govt say - all levels - of lots of help out there are just rubbish) divorce, financial hardship etc etc etc.

keep your religious ideals to yourselves - stop assuming your way is the right way. if its the right way for you - fine - but do not assume its right for all.


----------



## dutchie (10 February 2006)

Hear! Hear!


----------



## bullmarket (10 February 2006)

Hi son of baglimit



			
				son of baglimit said:
			
		

> bullmarket - 1 question - HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO RAISE A DISABLED CHILD.
> 
> while my situation isnt severe and we coped pretty well, i truly hate to think of the lives some people are forced to cope with, either because they couldnt get the pregnancy terminated for medical reasons, or the zealots out there got in their ear and gave them a false sense of life once the child was born.
> 
> ...




Firstly, no I have never raised a disabled child but I am aware of the severe hardships that parents and child have to live through each day depending on the circumstances.

Secondly, I am not making any assumptions or trying to impose my views. Obviously this is a very emotive subject and some will agree with my views and some will not.  I am just expressing my views, as we are all entitled to do, with supporting reasons and asking questions like the underlined question in post 19 of this thread to which no-one has been able to come up with answer yet.

Instead of asking me to keep my views to myself, why not try to answer the question I asked in my earlier post or post some verifiable information that shows anything I said is wrong.

I respect other peoples' views - though I don't agree with views supporting abortion - and so am just expressing my views supporting everyone's right to life and supporting arguments

If the views and reasoning I posted earlier encourages some to at least reconsider their views then all well and good, but if not then so be it. We are all entitled to our opnions....I'll just continue to call things as I see them with supporting reasons..

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Prospector (10 February 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Prospector,
> you say as abortion is legal in Australia...............
> 
> as far as I`m aware abortion is legal under certain circumstances,not as a birth control method.
> ...




I guess I would like to know where you have the information that finds that abortion is used as a contraceptive technique?

I would like to think that if a woman had to go thru the trauma of having an abortion then she would not want to subject herself that experience again.  

However, even so would it be in anyone's best interests to refuse a woman an abortion simply because she was not careful enough (or the male too for that matter?) or because her contraception had failed her?  Because if it was refused in those circumstance then that is where women will once again have to revert to backyard abortions.  And that is the last thing we need!


----------



## visual (10 February 2006)

Prospector,
just look at the numbers ,do you honestly believe that these people would all be at risk of death if they went ahead with the pregnancy,or would suffer psychological problems ,or financial hardship ect.. if the answer is yes,then we have a very sick society i mean medically not methaphorically.

Please be aware that the thing that i find unacceptable is the logic used to justify abortion,that theres a difference between embryos and fetus or indeed a live baby.If people want to have an abortion because of the reason that you mentioned in your post ,than thats fine.But dont use arguments about it not being taking a life.Each to their own but at the very least be honest.

I know of people who have had several abortions,because they could,it happens, recently i find out a student at our school had an abortion ,why because she was just having sex ,the father certainly wasnt going to marry her or take responsability for the baby so she got rid of it.
Unfortunately this subject like religion,is full of frailties .


----------



## bullmarket (10 February 2006)

Well..... I've had my      worth in this thread.

I just call things as I see them and I hope the reasons/logic I gave to support my views provide at least food for thought to some..........if not then so be it.

I hope my posts are seen in that light. To those that disagree with my views, then let's just simply agree to disagree and move on...

I'll leave you guys to it and hope to see you in the soup in other threads..

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Julia (10 February 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Hi Julia
> As a female I can only assert that it is the woman's choice to determine the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy.  While some posters assert that abortion should only be performed if there is a physical risk to the mother's life, this totally ignores any other impact an unwanted pregancy has on her life - such as her mental health.  Not to mention changing the course of her life for the next 18 years.
> 
> As abortion is legal in Australia, then RU486 offers an alternative method of achieving this, and is less invasive than surgical intervention.  The risks of surgical intervention including the use of anaesthetics is much higher than the use of this drug.
> ...




Hello Prospector,

You've summed it up really well.  I cannot see how Abbott can possibly expect anyone to accept his assertion that his rigidly anti-abortion views would have nothing to do with his decisions.

Julia


----------



## Julia (10 February 2006)

Regarding the safety or otherwise of RU486, my original post was made on the assumption that the drug will only be released for general use following the TGA having carried out the necessary investigations to determine its safety.

When discussing side effects etc., we need to remember that drug manufacturers are required to list a symptom as a side effect even if it occurred transiently in one person in several thousand.

Julia


----------



## Julia (10 February 2006)

Hi Bullmarket,

I respect your right to hold the views you have expressed so clearly.

However, I'd like to ask you to consider a scenario along the following lines:

A 15 year old girl has been raped by her father (this is not as uncommon as you may like to believe) and she is pregnant.  This girl is physically and intellectually handicapped.  She would be incapable of caring for a child.
Tests have indicated the baby will probably inherit at least some of the disability.  The father has been charged and will go to jail.  The girl's mother is devastated by the whole situation.

Do you think this girl should continue with the pregnancy?

If so, what do you think should happen to the baby?

Now, the above hypothetical situation may sound like something from a bad movie, but unfortunately it is something that occurs remarkably frequently.

Another situation which is even more common is two adults, not in a committed relationship, both drug addicts and alcoholics, chronically unemployed who have simply had sex a few times when stoned/drunk, and a pregnancy has resulted.  They have both been in and out of jail most of their adult lives and have no intention of trying to quit their addictions.  They both use crime as a means of funding their addictions.  Neither of them have any supportive family who could care for a child.  Because of the prospective mother's drug addiction, the baby would be born drug-dependent?

Again, do you think this baby should be brought into the world, and if so, what would you do about it.

Both of the above scenarios, if the pregnancy was completed, would be eligible for the government's baby bonus, now $ 3000 soon to be $7000. 
How do you think that would be spent?

And then there's the whole huge question of which people are having the most babies, and the resulting effect on society's gene pool.

The above questions are asked in the spirit of furthering the discussion and hopefully increasing empathy for differing points of view, and in no way represent a personal attack on you, bullmarket, or anyone else.

Julia


----------



## Prospector (10 February 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Regarding the safety or otherwise of RU486, my original post was made on the assumption that the drug will only be released for general use following the TGA having carried out the necessary investigations to determine its safety.
> 
> When discussing side effects etc., we need to remember that drug manufacturers are required to list a symptom as a side effect even if it occurred transiently in one person in several thousand.
> 
> Julia




Hi Julia
There is an irony in all this.  Mr Abbott has been stockpiling Tamiflu for the possibility of Pandemic Flu (I am a fan of its competitor, Relenza = Biota).  Yet Tamiflu has been linked with the deaths (psychotic) of several teenagers in Japan who had taken Tamiful for normal influenza treatment.  While the US equivalent of TGA has cleared Tamiflu at the moment, it will reassess in 12 months time.  I dont see Tony Abbott saying we shouldnt stockpile Tamiflu because of potential side effects, yet he wants to restrict RU486 because of similar concerns???  Tell me its not about religion then?


----------



## Knobby22 (10 February 2006)

The question being asked is if the minister should decide or some medical independant authority.

I can see both sides, 
(a)the minister is elected so he should get a say on controversial issues and if we don't like it we can vote him out.
(b) the minister is a politician and likly to make decisions for short term gain.

More of the Liberal women (even more than the Labor women) including Sen Vandstone are voting that it should be taken out of politicians hands.
On that basis, I probably think they must be more likely to be right than the male pollies and so are inclined to agree with them. 

I greatly dislike abortion, especially late term but that is not the argument, we are looking at another form only. 

Last year a doctor im Melbourne performed a late term abortion but neglected to kill the baby before removing it. The baby lay crying on a steel tray for two hours before it died. As usual there is a balance and no black and white view that is correct.


----------



## Happy (10 February 2006)

Dole + soon 7 grand a year very enticing and with free Medicare sponsored IVF females can get pregnant up to early 70-s or at least late 60-s.

So some will never use RU486, unless forced to.


----------



## happytrader (10 February 2006)

Hi Julia

In your scenario of the handicapped girl it would seem amazing that the father being the perpetrator would have come to light or that the family would have risked the ensuing humiliation and sought RU486 within the appropriate time frame.

As for the drug addicted couple it would also be amazing that they would even bother to obtain RU486.

Secrecy and denial are a big part of these scenarios. Time and acceptance would be of the essence in adminstration of RU486

However, your points are well taken.

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## wayneL (10 February 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> .....but neglected to kill the baby before removing it. The baby lay crying on a steel tray for two hours before it died. As usual there is a balance and no black and white view that is correct.




That is truly horrific! I hope there was some profound justification for it Knobby!


----------



## happytrader (10 February 2006)

Thats truly awful Knobby

However, did you hear about that? I'm truly shocked no one was moved to wrap, comfort and hold that crying little human. I know I would have.

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## bullmarket (10 February 2006)

Hi Julia 



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> Hi Bullmarket,
> 
> I respect your right to hold the views you have expressed so clearly.
> 
> ...




Both of your scenarios are extreme but valid questions as I agree they unfortunately happen on far too many occasions in our society 

I feel my answer to your two scenarios is summarised by the 2nd paragraph of an extract from one of my earlier posts (post 19 in this thread).



> Given my view as expressed earlier that the human life of an embryo/unborn child call him/her what you will, is just as important, valid and relevant as your life and my and everyone else's life, then how is aborting a pregnancy any less cold blooded murder than if someone in the street walked up to you, me or anyone else out of the blue and shot us dead?
> 
> Sure, some pro-abortionists can try to argue that for some reason an unborn child/embryo is somehow less of a human being (for medical, physical or whatever reasons suit their arguments) but that is simply not true imo. Using an unborn child's physical or mental disability to justify aborting the pregnancy is just as ludicrous and unjustifiable as terminating the life of say a 5 year old that becomes severely mentally or physically handicapped for whatever reason.




So my anwer to both scenarios is that the pregnancies should be allowed to run to full term, unless as I said even earlier it can be shown that allowing the pregnancy to continue would be life threatening to the mother.

The other part of your question was what would I do about the handicapped or drug addicted child after it was born if the parents were unable or unwilling to look after it.  To be honest I don't have a definite answer apart from the obvious putting them up for adoption, foster parents etc.  I don't know atm what other options of support would be available from the gov't, medical, welfare support authorities.  Maybe someone else can provide more info on what options are available.

But at the end of the day, to me terminating a life during pregnancy because of some disability, addiction or whatever would be no different to a mother (or anyone for that matter) terminating the life of say a 5 year old who became severely handicapped for life after a car accident for example, using the excuse that either they couldn't look after the handicapped child or that the child would no longer have a meaningful life.

I just can't see how someone can support killing an unborn child because of some disability and then be shocked and horrified if another mother killed her 5 year old child because the child suddenly became drug addicted, disabled, handicapped or whatever.  I would imagine that the available gov't and community support available to that 5 year old would also be available to the disabled, handicapped or addicted baby the moment it was born.

This is obviously an emotive subject and I don't have exact answers for extreme cases, but I refer you back to my original argument, which is the crux behind my views and that is that imo an embryo/unborn child is just as alive as you and I and everyone else and has the same right to life as everyone else whether it is handicapped, disabled, drug addicted or whatever. The only difference between an embryo and us is that an embryo is in a very early stage of physical development.  There is no other difference imo.

I hope this clears up, at least a little bit, where I am coming from.  I could go into the religious aspects but I won't do that here as I'm sure all hell would then break loose in here .

Anyway, to finish off, I hope everyone looks at my earlier posts in the light that although I have strong views on the topic, my posts with their reasoning/logic are aimed at providing food for thought, hopefully for at least those who might be wavering between pro/anti abortion. I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone - I'm just stating what my views are.....and to those that disagree with me...that's fine...lets agree to disagree and move on.

Phewwwww......my 2 typing fingers are battered and bruised after all this typing today   might have to give them a well earned rest...

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Prospector (10 February 2006)

Knobby, that story must relate to an illegal abortion if it did occur.  The upper limit for a legal abortion is around 22 weeks at the most, and fetus's are unable to breathe until at least 24 weeks, and generally 28 weeks.  In order to cry, you must be able to breathe so I cant see how this was possible.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 February 2006)

The nurse did end up wrapping it and the Doctor got in trouble for not following correct procedure, the baby was a late term abortion (from memory 26 to 30 weeks). It was done because the women had psychiatric problems. 

I will see if I can dig the report up but its old news now.

I am just saying that there are horror stories on both sides.
There are awful stories where you cannot expect the girl to go through with the birth also.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 February 2006)

Maybe it was Darwin, not Melbourne. Found this  from Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun so not a real reporting situation. The real report has long gone.


For too long, our doctors have avoided even recording the births -- and then deaths -- of babies who survive abortions. Greg Cavanagh found this out when he was tipped off by a horrified midwife about the abortion at 22 weeks of Jessica Jane, born alive in a Darwin hospital in 1998. 

Cavanagh, the Northern Territory coroner, was told how Jessica, tiny but perfect, was slipped into a stainless steel dish and left alone in a room where she cried until she died, 80 minutes later. 

At the inquest he called, he was also told that other late-term babies had been born alive after abortions in the NT, only to die. And none of those deaths had been reported to him or publicised in any way. 

It has been the same story in NSW. A coroner investigated the death of a baby found alive in a bin after an abortion in Sydney's Westmead Hospital and also learned there had been more such cases, none of which had been reported. 

I haven't heard of similar tragedies in Victoria, but who would tell? Or perhaps our doctors more routinely do what a doctor at Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital did to a healthy girl called Jessica, already 32 weeks in the womb, and first kill the fetus with an injection to the heart. 

In this Jessica's case, the doctor, who can't be named, thought she was a dwarf, which allegedly made her superstitious mother threaten to kill herself if she didn't get an abortion. It now turns out the doctor may have been wrong, though the hospital denies it. But I can't tell you much more, thanks to legal restrictions and the say-nothing culture of the abortion industry. 

But perhaps that say-nothingness may yet end, even here, now that Sydney abortionist Suman Sood was last month ordered to stand trial on charges of manslaughter following an alleged late-term abortion she performed. 

It is alleged that she handed an abortion drug to a woman who went home and gave birth to her son in her toilet. The boy was fished out and rushed to hospital, but died five hours later -- which, I guess, was the desired result anyway. Sood is fighting the charges.


----------



## wayneL (10 February 2006)

I am struggling to comprehend that this happens in OZ. I'm stunned!


----------



## Julia (10 February 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> Maybe it was Darwin, not Melbourne. Found this  from Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun so not a real reporting situation. The real report has long gone.
> 
> 
> For too long, our doctors have avoided even recording the births -- and then deaths -- of babies who survive abortions. Greg Cavanagh found this out when he was tipped off by a horrified midwife about the abortion at 22 weeks of Jessica Jane, born alive in a Darwin hospital in 1998.
> ...




Knobby:

The above is completely horrifying.  As Wayne has said:  how can it happen here?
However, we need to remember that these situations are (a) illegal, and (b) relate to late term abortions.  I don't think RU486 has ever been suggested to be appropriate for late term abortions, and for that matter, I doubt many in the medical fraternity would support late term abortions at all, regardless of the method.

Julia


----------



## Julia (10 February 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi Julia
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hello bullmarket:

You need to learn to type with all your fingers!

Don't really want to get too graphic here, but have you ever actually seen a foetus of up to, say, 12 weeks?  It is hardly reasonable to compare it with a five year old child.

I can follow your line of thought and there is a certain logic to it.

Try to consider this:  we do not live in a perfect world.  If we did, we would all be happy all the time, our relationships would all work out well, there would be no wars and no hatred, and people like Son of Baglimit would not have had the experience he and his wife have had.

Given that it is not, sadly, a perfect world, sometimes we have to put our idealism to one side and choose the least awful option.  In no way have I or any other pro-choice advocate suggested that abortion by whatever method is desirable.  If it occurs, it is almost never without much sadness and regret for everyone concerned.  My view is that that particular regret is proportionately less than a lifetime of regret for more than the parties involved in the abortion.  i.e. do you really think people are going to be queuing up to adopt an intellectually or physically disabled baby?  If you do, then I would respectfully suggest your idealism is in need of being tempered by common sense and practicality.

The above comment is not intended to convey any disrespect to you personally, but I do find it difficult sometimes to cope with the extraordinarily emotive arguments put forward by the anti-abortion lobby.  I also have a problem with people's religious beliefs (to which they are absolutely entitled)  influencing their decisions when those decisions affect people who have no way of arguing with those decisions.  Awfully convoluted sentence, sorry, but obviously I'm referring to Tony Abbott thinking his religious convictions should dictate the personal choices of the rest of our society.

This whole subject is intensely personal.  It should be.  It should not become the domain of politicians and religious zealots.

Julia


----------



## ghotib (11 February 2006)

On the question before the Senate, and soon before the Reps, I would have no trouble at all voting in support. The TGA is the appropriate body to consider all therapeutic goods in Australia and all the bill does is to take away an exceptional clause for RU486.

On the general question of abortion, I'd like to particularly salute Smurf and Bullmarket for clearly having given it a lot of thought and coming to different conclusions. Extra comments to Bullmarket: 

1.  It's unfair and inappropriate to use the term "pro-abortionists". NOBODY regards abortion as a good option. The argument is that sometimes it's the least worst option.

2.  You rightly point out that if our mothers had had abortions none of would be here. However, my mother had 4 spontaneous abortions - also known as miscarriages - between me and my sister. If those miscarriages hadn't occurred, my sister wouldn't be here. I don't know if any of those pregancies would have been viable with current medical technology, but should I hope so? Should my sister???

Knobby22, I think you're right that the case you were thinking of happened in Darwin. The coroner's report is here; the link is to the case of Baby J: http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/graphpages/courts/inquestlist.shtml 
(incidentally 2 cases before this one is the report of the first inquest in the death of Azaria Chamberlain. Julia, you wanna start another tough thread?)

You'll see that the coroner finds that the doctor had a responsibility to alleviate the baby's distress even though her live birth was unexpected and the probability of her long term survival was extremely remote. You'll also see that the doctor was not present when the baby was delivered; the only people there were the mother (whose evidence, if any, is not cited) and the midwife, and it's clear that the midwife was unprepared for the situation and that there were no procedures or protocols to guide her. The coroner recommends that all hospitals establish protocols to ensure that babies who survive termination procedures are treated with proper medical and palliative care and attention (which is what the nurse did for Baby J) and that their deaths are notified to the coroners' office. I have no argument with that. 

I think Bullmarket and Visual are right that it's important to recognise that the distinctions between induced abortion, infanticide, and murder are blurry and that all involved the killing of one human by another. 

But no society has an absolute ban on killing humans: the death penalty is judicial killing; war is state-sanctioned killing; the road toll is culturally acceptable accidental (and sometimes deliberate) killing; cigarette sales, industrial accidents, and pollution-caused disease are or have all been state-sanctioned killing for profit, especially when they happen outside our own borders. Why should we absolutely forbid killing an unborn child, especially one who is unable to survive independently of its mother, when we don't absolutely forbid, and sometimes actively encourage, killing children and adults?  

I kept expecting someone else to say this, and I'm sure there'll be someone else who could. I've had an abortion, and I have never doubted that I made the right decision. I'm not going into the details here, but I will say that the pregnancy was not the result of consensual sex and that I had good reason to think that the child would not have been healthy and normal even if the pregnancy had continued. I was fortunate that the procedure was legal and available to me in a hospital. If it hadn't been, I would probably be dead now.

Just as it's important to recognise that abortion does mean killing, it's important for those who argue for an absolutely ban on abortion to recognise that the effect of such a ban is that women will die. They will die from unsanitary and unsafe abortion practices, including self-induced abortion; they will die in childbirth; they will die in depression; some will die violently, since the likelihood of abortion is greater when economic and social resources are fewer, and greater still for women in abusive or violent relationships. It's hard to generalise about the effect on the children they already have (a high proportion of women seeking abortion are married women with one or more children). 

The best option is effective, readily-available contraception and information about how to use it. The discouraging and/or banning of contraception and sex education is in my view among the greatest of all the evils that humans have done to each other in the name of religion. But I guess that's another subject.

Ghoti


----------



## bullmarket (11 February 2006)

Hi Julia  

no problem....I respect your views although I obviously do not agree.

re: your previous comment:

_"Don't really want to get too graphic here, but have you ever actually seen a foetus of up to, say, 12 weeks? *It is hardly reasonable to compare it with a five year old child"*_.

The underlined part of your comment I think clearly shows the root cause of peoples' differing views on pro/anti abortion.

In my original post in this thread I said:

_*"I get the impression that those supporting abortion hide behind the misconception that an embryo is somehow less of a human being than you or I or anyone else. An embryo is just as alive as you and I and has a soul just like you and I and everyone else. The only difference is that an embryo is at a very much earlier stage of physical development. Apart from that there is no difference."*_

I get the impression from your above comment that you feel a 12 week old foetus is somehow less of a human being, less valid or whatever than you or I or anyone else.  That's fine, you are entitled to that view and many will probably agree with you at least to some extent, but I do not agree with that view at all.

You might recall that in earlier posts I reminded us all that we all were embryos and foetuses at one stage of our lives.  To me, an embryo or foetus is just as important, valid and with the same right to life a human being as anyone of us that have gone through the birth process.

I would like to ask anyone reading this post who supports your view, how they believe they were any less relevant, less important and had less of a right to life when they were an embryo, foetus or whatever than now.

As I said in my earlier post, the same support (the options of which I am not fully up to speed with) currently available to 5 year old that suddenly became disabled/handicapped for whatever reason should also be available from day 1 to a new born that is born with a handicap/disability or has parents that are unable or unwilling to look after him/her. So I do not accept the 2 scenarios you painted earlier as justifiable circumstances to terminate a pregnancy, as tragic and traumatic as those circumstances are.

Regarding people having a go at others who base views on religious or whatever beliefs I don't see anything wrong with people basing their views on religious beliefs/faith, apart from the wildly extremist views we are seeing in our world atm, as long as those views are not being imposed on others.  At the end of the day, we are in a democracy and the majority view will usually win out. But it looks like I'm in the minority, in this thread at least 

*Hi ghotib*

I appreciate your comments.

Anyway, looks like my 2 typing fingers are going into a relapse  so I think I better give them a rest and I'll check back in next week.

Finally, just a quick reminder:  please take this post as food for thought and not me trying to impose my views or saying that everyone else is wrong.

Have a good weekend everyone 

bullmarket


----------



## son of baglimit (11 February 2006)

hi bullmarket & others - i acknowledge you werent necessarily out there to ram down our throats your point of view - but i guess the problem is there are those who DO RAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS, and the point i was trying to make to any of them watching is that they have NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE. 
and on another point raised - i for one am definitely not pro abortion - i simply see circumstances where, for the good of the existing family, their wellbeing, emotionally, and every other aspect you can think of, aborting a foetus that has either extremely poor chances of survival, or whose existence would probably drain the life out of all those around it, is the BEST option.
therefore is comes down to WHO gets the option of utilising this drug if circumstances arise :

in the yes column : rape victims, those whose scans show clear evidence of severe abnormalities, 1st time pregnancies of girls under, say 13, or some others, whose own body is at risk if the pregnancy went close to full term (and oh boy is this a can of worms) etc etc.

in the no column : women/couples whose only concern is the damage a baby will do to their careers, finances, social status, lifestyle etc etc (we all know the type) - and anyone else who cant provide a valid reason - who wants to contribute here ?

final point - the disability our child has was not detectible from scans....and dont ask.


----------



## Julia (11 February 2006)

son of baglimit said:
			
		

> hi bullmarket & others - i acknowledge you werent necessarily out there to ram down our throats your point of view - but i guess the problem is there are those who DO RAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS, and the point i was trying to make to any of them watching is that they have NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE.
> and on another point raised - i for one am definitely not pro abortion - i simply see circumstances where, for the good of the existing family, their wellbeing, emotionally, and every other aspect you can think of, aborting a foetus that has either extremely poor chances of survival, or whose existence would probably drain the life out of all those around it, is the BEST option.
> therefore is comes down to WHO gets the option of utilising this drug if circumstances arise :
> 
> ...




Son of Baglimit:

I agree with your yes/no categories, and reinforce that I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion" as such.  Obviously it would be better if there was never a need for it at all.
As I understand it, one category which presently is supposed to be satisfied is "the pregnancy could adversely affect the mental health of the mother".
I expect this is the justification provided for the category you have described where the pregnancy represents somewhat of an inconvenience.

Those who are anti-abortion have argued rationally - I thank you for that.
This has been a civilised discussion for a sensitive subject.  I absolutely respect your right to hold the views you do.

I'd like to ask those who have declared anti-abortion views this question:
  Do you think abortion should be legal, or do you in fact think no one should be able to access a legally sanctioned termination in a public hospital?

Another aspect of this discussion came up last night on the 7.30 Report.
i.e. catholic doctors saying they would refuse to prescribe RU486.  Presumably they will/do also refuse to refer a woman for a surgical termination.  One doctor appearing on the programme was asked "would you refer the patient to someone who could give her the information/referral" or words to that effect, and the catholic doctor said that it was up to his patient to find that out for herself.

Is it right for a doctor to do this?

Julia


----------



## Prospector (11 February 2006)

Yes, I agree Julia there has been some excellent debate.

Regarding the question about the Catholic Doctor, I thought that part of the Hippocratic oath dealt with not passing any value judgements in the rendering of medical advice.  I have a Catholic Doctor, I must ask her what she would do when I next see her!  I do know that she doesnt like HRT but will still prescribe it if needed though!

A letters to the Editor in the Australian today said "thank goodness Tony wasnt a Jehovah's witness and we needed a blood transfusion!" 

I guess that puts the religion/values aspect in a nutshell, doesnt it!


----------



## bullmarket (11 February 2006)

Yes Julia....this is definitely one of your most thought provoking threads  and I think we've done very well to go for so long without any 'spot fires' breaking out...so well done everyone..!!

Anyway, in reply to Julia's latest question: 

*



			I'd like to ask those who have declared anti-abortion views this question:
Do you think abortion should be legal, or do you in fact think no one should be able to access a legally sanctioned termination in a public hospital?
		
Click to expand...


*
my view is fairly well documented from my very first post in this thread and so I won't repeat myself.

But in addition to Julia's question, please let me re post 2 questions I posted in earlier posts to which I have at best seen only vague indirect replies without any real direct reference to them....my apologies to anyone who did reply since I missed them, so please refer me to the post no. in this thread if you replied.

_Question 1_



> *Given my view as expressed earlier that the human life of an embryo/unborn child call him/her what you will, is just as important, valid and relevant as your life and my and everyone else's life, then how is aborting a pregnancy any less cold blooded murder than if someone in the street walked up to you, me or anyone else out of the blue and shot us dead?
> 
> Sure, some pro-abortionists can try to argue that for some reason an unborn child/embryo is somehow less of a human being (for medical, physical or whatever reasons suit their arguments) but that is simply not true imo. Using an unborn child's physical or mental disability to justify aborting the pregnancy is just as ludicrous and unjustifiable as terminating the life of say a 5 year old that becomes severely mentally or physically handicapped for whatever reason.*




Please take the reference to 'cold blooded murder' as being in the ethical/moral sense and not the legal sense.

_Question 2_



> *I would like to ask anyone reading this post who supports your view, how they believe they were any less relevant, less important and had less of a right to life when they were an embryo, foetus or whatever than now.*




The view I am referring to in this question is Julia's comment:

"Don't really want to get too graphic here, but have you ever actually seen a foetus of up to, say, 12 weeks? It is hardly reasonable to compare it with a five year old child".

*Hi again prospector*

re your comment: 



> A letters to the Editor in the Australian today said "thank goodness Tony wasnt a Jehovah's witness and we needed a blood transfusion!"
> 
> I guess that puts the religion/values aspect in a nutshell, doesnt it!




I can see what you are getting at but I don't see it as a fair comparison.  

Blood transfusions are a process that can be used to help save lives and so I and I suspect the overwhelming majority would resist any attempts to make blodd transfusions illegal.  Abortion is totally different as it has the sole aim of killing another human being for whatever reason.

But having said that, even Jehovah's Witnesses have a right to their views but like everyone else should refrain from trying to impose them on everyone else.

I really can't see how anyone can argue against someone else basing their views/opinions on their religious beliefs/faith or whatever, especially if they profess the protection and preservation of human life, as long as they do not try to impose them on others who have different beliefs or views.  Healthy debate is good imo.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Julia (11 February 2006)

Bullmarket:

I've read through your long post twice and can't see a direct response to my question regarding whether or not you think a termination of pregnancy should be legally available to a woman in the Australian public health system.

Could you just say Yes or No?

If I've missed a Yes or No in your post, then I apologise.

Julia


----------



## Julia (11 February 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Yes, I agree Julia there has been some excellent debate.
> 
> Regarding the question about the Catholic Doctor, I thought that part of the Hippocratic oath dealt with not passing any value judgements in the rendering of medical advice.  I have a Catholic Doctor, I must ask her what she would do when I next see her!  I do know that she doesnt like HRT but will still prescribe it if needed though!
> 
> ...



Hi Prospector,

This has been a serious discussion and that's how it should be with such a sensitive subject.

However, I have to thank you for the above post - haven't laughed out loud like this for a few days.  I can just see the potential for the cartoonists?

Hope you stick around.

Julia


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 February 2006)

I thought I would raise this issue face to face with a group of people that I know fairly well (we frequently discuss all sorts of "off limits" subjects) and see what the response was. All the people in this group are male but range from conservative thinking and actively involved with their local church to those who see conservatism and religion as a major cause of problems.

General broad consensus:

1. Abortion in itself is not in general a desirable situation.

2. There are exceptions to the above. One individual (personally opposed to abortion) made the observation that we were created with the intelligence to develop the means to verify the health of unborn babies and that there must have been a reason for us having this ability. He was unsure whether this meant that deformed babies should be aborted, whether we are intended to develop the means to correct the deformities or whether it was intended simply as advanced warning of a need to cope with it. He did state however that with the pace of modern medicine we'll find out in the not too distant future if correction of deformities was intended. That is, we'll develop the technology if that's what's intended. (He believes in creation rather than evolution.)

3. Despite the above it is ultimately an individual decision. 

4. In practice there will be abortions whether legal or not.

5. Overall it is preferable that abortions, to the extent that they are carried out, are done in proper facilities with trained doctors etc rather than "back yard".

6. The recent debate properly focuses on the _means_ of performing an abortion and not whether or not they should occur in the first place. They are separate issues.

7. Various parallels with alcohol were drawn. The general argument being that prohibition is impractical and against the spirit of freedom in Western society therefore it is preferable to have properly regulated production of alcohol (or abortions or anything else) rather than "back yard" operators. Banning the organised production of anything makes sense only if that leads to non-availability rather than simply shifting the operation "underground".

8. My notion that from a "big picture" perspective abortion results in the same ultimate outcome as not getting pregnant in the first place resulted in some interesting and at times lively debate. It was generally accepted that from a purely scientific (not moral or social) perspective this is true and is in fact the manner in which humans tend to view other species - in terms of outright numbers rather than as individuals. There was however disagreement about whether life in general (humans and other species) ought to be viewed in this way in the first place (personally I can see both sides of that argument and raised it in an earlier post purely to stimulate debate). 

Various parallels with animals were raised and also the issue of euthanasia came up - most people seem to agree that it's reasonable to put down a suffering dog rather than wait for it to die naturally so why not humans? Is life valuable to the point that suffering (including people born with severe disabilities - the abortion issue where it's known before birth) should be accepted or is it better to avoid suffering? Broad conclusion that abortion is an individual issue and not one which threatens the population as a whole unless it became so common as to result in a falling global population.

The issue of evolution was also raised. Are some groups in society more likely than others to access abortion and would this, over the long term, alter the composition of the population? No conclusion was reached although it was generally accepted that it is possible in theory. It would noted that modern lifestyles, social pressures and economics also lead to this outcome. Medical technology in general, both assisting life and reproduction where it would not naturally occur and abortion, was noted as having similar implications if practised on a sufficiently large scale. Some expressed the view that life saving and reproductive technology is in sufficiently common use that it would be interfering in this manner - that those who would otherwise not reproduce are doing so in sufficient numbers to prevent or at least limit evolution by means of "survival and reproduction of the fittest" in modern society. No conclusion as to whether or not this actually matters though it could be a problem _if_ a large proportion of children were being born with genetics not conducive to natural (unassisted by medial technology) survival and reproduction since this would constitute "reproduction of the least fit". 

One individual disagreed with the notion of evolution in the first place but did accept that medical technology would be altering the outcomes intened by God and that this hasn't been properly considered in terms of implications. But then he also noted that to the extent such technology has been developed in the first place, it occurred in view of the intelligence we as a species are intended to have. He also expressed a view that a minority of pregnancies are terminated and that this may reflect an intention that not all people will think alike and as such it may not be "wrong" despite his personal oppositon to it. He argued that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that people aren't intended to agree on everything and this is a function of our creation in the first place.

Someone made the comment that, apparently, in the US there is a significantly higher birth rate amongst those most likely to vote Republican and that the issue thus has political as well as moral and scientific implications. I'm unable to verify if this is correct but their argument sounded plausible.

Overall an interesting debate was had. Had to stop there though due to alcohol taking it's toll on the thought process (as usually happens with our group discussions).


----------



## bullmarket (12 February 2006)

Hi Julia



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> Bullmarket:
> 
> I've read through your long post twice and can't see a direct response to my question regarding whether or not you think a termination of pregnancy should be legally available to a woman in the Australian public health system.
> 
> ...




Apology accepted 

Below are extracts from my first post in this thread and one of my subsequent posts which clearly answer *no* to your question.



> *My view is that unless a pregnancy can be shown to be a direct threat to the life of the mother, which is the only situation under which terminating the pregnancy could be considered, then terminating a pregnancy is nothing short of cold blooded murder.*






> *Personally, I think you are asking the wrong question because of course a woman, hopefully in consultation with the baby's father, can choose what to do if faced with an unexpected pregnancy for whatever reason.
> 
> But imo, for the reasons I expressed in my earlier post, the choices available do not include aborting the pregnancy, again except for the very exceptional circumstances in my earlier post.
> 
> ...




I would have thought the above extracts make it quite clear that I do not believe abortion should be legal and it should only be considered in the exceptional circumstances I mentioned in my first post in this thread.

I think we're starting to go round in circles now and repeat views and asking questions that are very similar to those asked in previous posts.

I believe my views and supporting reasons are well documented in this thread and they were aimed at providing food for thought especially for those who might be wavering between pro/anti abortion atm.

I'll leave you guys to it in this thread and well done again to everyone for listening and responding to the various views without starting any bush fires. 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 February 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> I'll leave you guys to it in this thread and well done again to everyone for listening and responding to the various views without starting any bush fires.



Hear hear! Well done everybody for debating this sensitive issue in a civilised manner. I'm a bit surprised given the subject but it's a good thing we've debated it sensibly IMO. A few others in the general community could learn from this approach on a range of issues, not just abortion.


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> *Hi again prospector*
> 
> re your comment:
> 
> ...






Hi again Bullmarket,

I guess that I feel that if a women really does not want to proceed with a pregnancy, and the raising of that child for 18 years, then just maybe, abortion saves her life.  Not always in the literal sense, but to protect everything that she has now, but will change drastically and forever, should she proceed with the birth.  And the raising of a child for 18 years. Just because of really what is a biological accident?  

And I dont see adoption as an answer (and by the way, I am an adoptive parent so I do actually know what I am talking about here!)

Unfortunately I do see Mr Abbott's religious background as influencing his decision here, because as abortion is legal under the specified circumstances, then the use of the RU486 pill is significantly safer than any surgical procedure.  And even safer than giving birth!  So why has he effectively banned it?   My conspiracy theory makes me think that just maybe he thinks if a woman is 'naughty' enough to have to have an abortion, then lets make it as uncomfortable as possible for her, maybe even punish her a bit, so she doesnt do it again (whatever 'it' is)    Nah, I'm not serious, well, maybe just a bit  

As an aside I also read yesterday that a voter was angry with his/her elected representative because he had voted "according to his views on this having read some research".  They stated thought they had elected him to represent his electorate.  Interesting point I thought!


And Smurf, my gosh, your post made for interesting reading!

Cheers All!


----------



## dutchie (12 February 2006)

Two points I have thought about in this debate:

Raising a child does not stop when a child turns 18.  I think it is, or should be, a life long commitment by the parents (hopefully it gets easier as they get older - but often the opposite).

A scenerio I recall on a TV show or movie. A child from  Jehovah Witness parents is in hospital needing a life saving blood transfusion. Parents refuse, on religious beliefs, to sign consent form to allow operation. What does the doctor/ hospital do? Do the parents have the right to place their beliefs on a child, who has no understanding of these beliefs, to the extent that it kills the child??


----------



## Julia (12 February 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi Julia
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bullmarket:

But your comment above has a "let out" clause in it.  The way you have put it to me suggests that usually any woman seeking an abortion does not do sofor some exceptional reason.  To go back to the earlier hypothetical scenario I posted earlier, the disabled teenager whose pregnancy was a result of rape by her father, would that fit your criteria of "exceptional circumstances"?  If it wouldn't, then could you give some instances of what you would feel would in fact be exceptional circumstances?

I guess this aspect brings up the oft quoted accusation that lots of women use abortion as a form of contraception.  I simply don't believe this is true
and as far as I'm aware there are no quality studies to this effect.

As others have said, forcing a woman to have a child which she feels she cannot care for can have immense ramifications throughout many years to come, and for many more people than the woman herself.

Again, I'm not at all trying to "get at you" and appreciate the way you've stated and restated some of your views, but I'm just genuinely trying to understand the way an anti-abortion mind thinks.

Julia


----------



## Julia (12 February 2006)

dutchie said:
			
		

> Two points I have thought about in this debate:
> 
> Raising a child does not stop when a child turns 18.  I think it is, or should be, a life long commitment by the parents (hopefully it gets easier as they get older - but often the opposite).
> 
> A scenerio I recall on a TV show or movie. A child from  Jehovah Witness parents is in hospital needing a life saving blood transfusion. Parents refuse, on religious beliefs, to sign consent form to allow operation. What does the doctor/ hospital do? Do the parents have the right to place their beliefs on a child, who has no understanding of these beliefs, to the extent that it kills the child??




Hi Dutchie,

I think the Jehovah Witness scenario has actually occurred, but can't remember what the outcome was.  Someone will know.  I think the parents' views were overridden by the medical staff but I could be wrong.  This could be another whole debate.

Julia


----------



## Julia (12 February 2006)

Hello Smurf:

I would love to have been the proverbial fly on the wall at your all male discussion.  Thanks a lot for posting your conclusions - really interesting.

Julia


----------



## bullmarket (12 February 2006)

Hi Julia



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> Bullmarket:
> 
> But your comment above has a "let out" clause in it.  The way you have put it to me suggests that usually any woman seeking an abortion does not do sofor some exceptional reason.  To go back to the earlier hypothetical scenario I posted earlier, the disabled teenager whose pregnancy was a result of rape by her father, would that fit your criteria of "exceptional circumstances"?  If it wouldn't, then could you give some instances of what you would feel would in fact be exceptional circumstances?
> 
> Julia




The points you make in the above extract I have addressed directly in previous posts.

To summarise, I refer you back to an extract from my very 1st post in this thread which clearly states the exceptional circumstance I believe abortion can be considered.



> _*My view is that unless a pregnancy can be shown to be a direct threat to the life of the mother, which is the only situation under which terminating the pregnancy could be considered, then terminating a pregnancy is nothing short of cold blooded murder.
> 
> I get the impression that those supporting abortion hide behind the misconception that an embryo is somehow less of a human being than you or I or anyone else. An embryo is just as alive as you and I and has a soul just like you and I and everyone else. The only difference is that an embryo is at a very much earlier stage of physical development. Apart from that there is no difference.
> 
> Maybe try thinking of it this way - an indisputable fact is that you and I and everyone else were all embryos at one stage of our lives and if your mother or the mother of anyone else reading this post had decided to have an abortion for whatever reason while pregnant with you then none of you would be here today reading this post*_.




I believe this extract clearly answers your question: _*"If it wouldn't, then could you give some instances of what you would feel would in fact be exceptional circumstances?"*_

Regarding your question: _*"To go back to the earlier hypothetical scenario I posted earlier, the disabled teenager whose pregnancy was a result of rape by her father, would that fit your criteria of "exceptional circumstances"?"*_  I have clearly and directly answered those 2 scenarios you painted in earlier posts by saying that neither of those 2 scenarios were justifiable circumstances to terminate a pregnancy imo for the reasons I gave in my replies to your scenarios.

I said in my previous post that I felt that we were starting to go round in circles by expressing views and asking questions that are the same or very similar to those already expressed in earlier posts.  Your last post to me tends to confirm view, for me at least.

From hereon I will not be repeating my views or answers to already previously asked questions as my earlier posts are simply food for thought and I don't want the repeating of my earlier posts to be seen as attempts to 'force-feed' my views on anyone.

I have explained my views on this topic as clearly and as extensively as I can with supporting reasons and so I don't feel there is much more I can go into unless someone wants to talk about the religious aspects but that could be a real 'time bomb' and probably should be discussed in another thread and not in this one.

So finally, if anyone is interested in my personal views on this topic and the supporting reasons behind them then simply do a search on this thread to retrieve my posts.  Bear in mind the purpose of my posts are food for thought as I said earlier.  I feel I have gone as far as I can in this thread.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2006)

Re the issue of children and medical treatment, if the child is under the age of 18, and therefore not legally an adult, if the parents refuse treatment that is a life emergency situation, then the Minister for Community Welfare (or whatever it is called in each state) takes on the guardianship of the child, the authority is then transferred to the Hospital involved.  The same would apply if a child was in urgent need of say, surgery, and the parents couldnt be contacted to give consent.


Re the raising of children being a lifelong consideration - my 21 year old threatens to stay at home until he is at least 30!    I think life is too good for him at home.  Only problem is, partner and I plan to sell our big family home in the next six years or so, so we will have to sell it with an encumbrance that there is a twenty-something living upstairs who requires feeding, and who puts his clothes down the laundry chute and expects them to be cleaned


----------



## clowboy (12 February 2006)

Prospector,

Don't think you will get your asking price for the house.

LOL


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 February 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Re the raising of children being a lifelong consideration - my 21 year old threatens to stay at home until he is at least 30!



Sorry for the off topic but I think it's appropriate to respond...

With the lack of job security and the housing affordability crisis, many "young" people have no choice but to stay home until 30 or even older. Oh how lucky this generation is to have to work literally twice as long to buy a house as their parents did.   Just something to ponder since it wasn't 21 year olds who made the decisions which lead to this but rather their parents and grandparents. 

I think the concept of intergenerational equity will be a rather big issue in the future. Not just finances but resources, environment, worker's rights and a range of other issues. Interesting times ahead...


----------



## ghotib (12 February 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> But at the end of the day, to me terminating a life during pregnancy because of some disability, addiction or whatever would be no different to a mother (or anyone for that matter) terminating the life of say a 5 year old who became severely handicapped for life after a car accident for example, using the excuse that either they couldn't look after the handicapped child or that the child would no longer have a meaningful life.



Well Bullmarket, To me denying women the option of legal, safe abortion is no different from forcing them to abandon babies on doorsteps or send their children onto the streets to beg. 

To me, it is grossly irresponsible to force women to carry every pregnancy to full term while not even taking the trouble to find out how they might care for the children, let alone ensuring that they can.

Ghoti


----------



## Prospector (13 February 2006)

And sadly Bullmarket, the mother of a severely disabled child did just that - killed the child because she could no longer care for it (I believe it was congenital disability) and there was very little financial or emotional support for her in the community because, lets face it, carers of disabled people have very little voting power.  She simply couldnt do it anymore.  She was at the end of her rope.  Of course she faced a murder trial but most people considered it to be a very sad and tragic situation for all concerned.


----------



## happytrader (13 February 2006)

To be quite truthful, I'm not interested one way or another if a woman decides to abort or conceive her baby. I've seen plenty who declared they'd never have an abortion and the next thing they're having one. Same goes for women who have strongly expressed their view on how rational it is to have an abortion and they change their mind at the doorstep. 

What bothers me is the effect on any woman lacking in experience who had previously admired and sought advice from and listened to these types of women previous to them having their own personal experience. Btw - none were teenagers.

The absolute worst thing anyone can do is betray themselves by putting the thoughts and feeling of others before their own. Get to know yourself, listen to yourself and your own truth. After all you have to wake up with yourself everyday of your life so make sure you are your own best friend and of one mind. 

The majority of women would still be being compelled to adopt out their babies because of what the town might think if it hadn't been for those brave souls who by their actions said, 'bugger it, I'm keeping my baby and I'll find a way' 

Yes RU486 gives you a choice just make sure its your own. I note that the first thing most young blokes say when their girlfriends inform them they are pregnant is "why don't you get an abortion"

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## bullmarket (13 February 2006)

Hi Ghotib



			
				ghotib said:
			
		

> Well Bullmarket, To me denying women the option of legal, safe abortion is no different from forcing them to abandon babies on doorsteps or send their children onto the streets to beg.
> 
> To me, it is grossly irresponsible to force women to carry every pregnancy to full term while not even taking the trouble to find out how they might care for the children, let alone ensuring that they can.
> 
> Ghoti




Yes looks like this thread is starting to chase its own tail now (as I suggested in my prevuous post) as your above point or ones very similar to it have already been expressed in earlier posts in this thread.

I disagreed with it and I gave my reasons why in my earlier posts.  I won't be copying and pasting my earlier replies anymore for the risk of potentially being accused of trying to impose my views on others.

If anyone is interested in my views it would only take about a minute to search this thread for my posts using the search tool.

Having said that, I'm now stating to wonder if those starting to repeat views already expressed or repeatedly asking the same or similar questions are in fact trying to impose their views on me and/or on those who have similar views to me?   I hope not....

If someone raises a new point or expresses a view that hasn't been already expressed before in this thread then I will respond if asked otherwise feel free to search my posts.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## ghotib (13 February 2006)

Hi Bullmarket,


			
				bullmarket said:
			
		

> Having said that, I'm now stating to wonder if those starting to repeat views already expressed or repeatedly asking the same or similar questions are in fact trying to impose their views on me and/or on those who have similar views to me?   I hope not....
> 
> If someone raises a new point or expresses a view that hasn't been already expressed before in this thread then I will respond if asked otherwise feel free to search my posts.
> 
> ...



Imposing views isn't the problem; the problem is imposing behaviour. Women who share your views about abortion cannot force men who share mine to carry a child to term. If your views lead you to actively support people who care for children (eg through tax deductible childcare) and to support sex education and readily available contraception, then we can agree to disagree, though I reserve the right to protest the accusation of cold-blooded murder. 

Cheers.

Ghoti


----------



## happytrader (13 February 2006)

Just a point that seems to be missing here. Safe and legal abortion has been available to both single and married women in NZ and Australia for nearly 20 years that I know of. The legal umbrella ensures that basically anyone qualifies for an abortion. RU486 is just another avenue.

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## petee (13 February 2006)

wow such hardline views Julia...what about the rights of the unborn baby..if u dont want pregnancy then control yourselves..stop being so selfish


----------



## visual (13 February 2006)

on another thread someone older,his words,
posted that nizar should drop the sms way of putting words because he found it hard to translate , so i thought it was funny to see a cartoon in the herald sun asking
r u 4 8 6
i`ve put 6 down as sex what does 8 stand for though the others  are self explanatory.
I know its not a funny subject but like bullmarket said its now going round and round so i though i1d through that in,apologies for those who dont find this amusing.


----------



## Prospector (13 February 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> on another thread someone older,his words,
> posted that nizar should drop the sms way of putting words because he found it hard to translate , so i thought it was funny to see a cartoon in the herald sun asking
> r u 4 8 6
> 
> I know its not a funny subject but like bullmarket said its now going round and round so i though i1d through that in,apologies for those who dont find this amusing.




Actually, twas me who asked him not to 'sms' because being of the older generation, I spend too much time trying to work out what was written, let alone grasp the meaning. And 'he' is a 'she'


----------



## visual (13 February 2006)

Sorry prospector,
didn't mean to cast aspersions on your gender.  
she it is then.


----------



## Julia (13 February 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Re the raising of children being a lifelong consideration - my 21 year old threatens to stay at home until he is at least 30!    I think life is too good for him at home.  Only problem is, partner and I plan to sell our big family home in the next six years or so, so we will have to sell it with an encumbrance that there is a twenty-something living upstairs who requires feeding, and who puts his clothes down the laundry chute and expects them to be cleaned




Hi Prospector:

Perhaps you could turn the resident 21 year old into a selling feature?
With some creative marketing, it could be the clincher for a prospective purchaser who has a similarly aged daughter?

Maybe I shouldn't be seeking a career in real estate.

Julia


----------



## weird (13 February 2006)

I wonder if RU486 was around in our grandparents time, how many 'currently alive' people in this forum would even be able to respond to this post  

Not that the topic of abortion should ever be considered lightly, however I also wonder how many people have turned to abortion as a short term gain <quick fix to a problem, even perhaps simply convenience>, but now have life long pain because of the decision.


----------



## visual (13 February 2006)

weird,
thats the point pro abortionists are making ,abortions were around in your grandparents time,except they were called backyard obstretitians,hence the prolobby argument for legal abortions and now the ru486 pill.
The real question should be,why cloud the taking of a life with ignorance,re-its not really a life because the baby is not born yet ect...I`m sure that in those uneducated times people knew that an abortion was the destruction of life for whatever reason they chose to have one.Be it lack of money ,or for social reasons or whatever.
These days unfortunately,althought we`re better educated that distinction is being obfuscated with too much knowledge/education

I have never being for abortion but if a life has to be brought in this world just to suffer,eg by being unwanted for whatever reason then go ahead and spare the poor unwanted life the pain that he she would surely suffer.


----------



## bullmarket (13 February 2006)

Hi visual



			
				visual said:
			
		

> I have never being for abortion but if a life has to be brought in this world just to suffer,eg by being unwanted for whatever reason then go ahead and spare the poor unwanted life the pain that he she would surely suffer.




But to me your logic is flawed because if you are to be consistent in that view then that implies that you would support the killing of a 5 year old who suddenly became handicapped/disabled or whatever and then became "too hard" to look after by the mother.

I don't think for a second that you would support the killing of a 5 year old that has suddenly become handicapped and "too hard" to look after, but then where do you and people like Julia draw the line on the stage of physical development where you feel it would be justified to kill an unborn handicapped child. *I don't believe that line exists. *  Surely the gov't, community support that would be available to that handicapped 5 year old would also be available to the handicapped child from the moment it was born.
To me it all boils down to pro-abortionists imo wrongly believing that an unborn child, even at the embrionic stage, is some how less of a human being than you or I and so for some reason has a lesser right to life than you or I or the 5 year old that has become "too hard" to look after for whatever reason.

bullmarket


----------



## visual (13 February 2006)

Bullmarket,
I don`t want to get into an argument with you,but you are referring to infanticide,and I`m sure that you are aware that already happens.

What I am referring to is prevention,of that.(by that I mean suffering that affects many people around the life being taken)

Killing is killing.
No distinction,

By having an abortion the only people who suffer are the mother or father if he ever finds out that is.Because in the end whatever argument they put up at the time,they are the ones who have to live with the knowledge that they took a life that at the time was inconvenient .


On a personal note,many times I`ve wished the bastards who had me had aborted me,why because they already had a daughter and upon finding out I was a girl ,they simply decided they didnt want me,so you can imagine the hell my life has been.They also decided to keep me because it would`ve looked bad to give me away.Enough said.


----------



## Prospector (13 February 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> I don't think for a second that you would support the killing of a 5 year old that has suddenly become handicapped and "too hard" to look after, but then where do you and people like Julia draw the line on the stage of physical development where you feel it would be justified to kill an unborn handicapped child. *I don't believe that line exists. *
> bullmarket






But that line does exist Bullmarket!  It is the time at which a fetus can survive if it is born.  And that is about 26 - 28 weeks, where it is viable for a fetus to draw breath on its own!  Before then, it can't - it is almost a parasite if you like because it cannot survive without its 'host' - the mother.

I am totally  against abortions after 24 weeks, because the infant could, potentially, with lots of life support though, exist.  However, before that time,  I dont consider that the fetus is viable on its own.  And that, not coincidentally, is the time when abortions cant legally be performed.


----------



## Prospector (13 February 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> On a personal note,many times I`ve wished the bastards who had me had aborted me,why because they already had a daughter and upon finding out I was a girl ,they simply decided they didnt want me,so you can imagine the hell my life has been.They also decided to keep me because it would`ve looked bad to give me away.Enough said.




I am so sorry to hear this visual, you deserve so much more than this.


----------



## jimbarmather (13 February 2006)

Hi,
Interesting comments, My view is that as abortion is legal the only consideration should be if this pill is safe and only the medical profession should evaluate this not a minister etc.

As to whether abortion should be legal is a different matter. Every child should be a loved and wanted child and if either of the parents cannot give this love and care then to me it is better for the mother to have an abortion.

I also think that your opinions change as to your age and sex, when you are young and could be faced with the reality of supporting a child for 20 years without support and little income, you can put yourself in that position and have sympathy for it
When you are older and can just think about the moral issues from your comfy armchair with money in the bank and a house paid for it's easy to say that abortion should not take place.

I have been in both situations a lot of older biased men haven't.
B.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 February 2006)

weird said:
			
		

> I wonder if RU486 was around in our grandparents time, how many 'currently alive' people in this forum would even be able to respond to this post



Can't argue with the logic there but it would be exactly the same if they hadn't had sex in the first place. Some of us wouldn't be here.

I have no problem with your views but I find it really strange that the church (most if not all religions) takes the view that (1) abortion is wrong (2) sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Now, if the argument is about killing unborn babies etc then I can follow that logic. No problem so far. But the anti-abortionists practically always bring up the argument that you or I wouldn't be here if we had been aborted. That is correct in a logical sense but it is an incompatible argument with the idea that there is something wrong with sex outside of marriage since prevention of that would also have caused some of us not to be here. 

Many, particularly the church, preach both which is contradictory since they are both supporting and opposing things which lead to the same outcome whilst arguing that the outcome is the basis of their reasoning. Just doesn't stack up. It would make sense if there wasn't the "you might not be here" argument used to justify the position taken. But they keep raising that very argument.

As I said, nothing personal. I'm not particularly keen on abortions myself (though I accept them as inevitable in practice and therefore support proper standards and proceedures) but I just take issue with the "you might not be alive today" argument against abortion whilst many of it's supporters continue to argue in favour of other ideas which also lead to the exact same result. Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Julia (13 February 2006)

jimbarmather said:
			
		

> Hi,
> Interesting comments, My view is that as abortion is legal the only consideration should be if this pill is safe and only the medical profession should evaluate this not a minister etc.
> 
> As to whether abortion should be legal is a different matter. Every child should be a loved and wanted child and if either of the parents cannot give this love and care then to me it is better for the mother to have an abortion.
> ...




Hello B

You've put that very well and I agree.  A lot of my views about many areas of life have changed as I've been exposed to the suffering so many people experience.  Sitting in judgment on someone only increases their incapacity to cope.

Julia


----------



## bullmarket (13 February 2006)

Hi Prospector



			
				Prospector said:
			
		

> But that line does exist Bullmarket!  It is the time at which a fetus can survive if it is born.  And that is about 26 - 28 weeks, where it is viable for a fetus to draw breath on its own!  Before then, it can't - it is almost a parasite if you like because it cannot survive without its 'host' - the mother.
> 
> I am totally  against abortions after 24 weeks, because the infant could, potentially, with lots of life support though, exist.  However, before that time,  I dont consider that the fetus is viable on its own.  And that, not coincidentally, is the time when abortions cant legally be performed.




and therein lies one fundamental difference which forms the basis for our different views.

*I believe the line doesn't exist * because to me human life begins at conception and not further down the track.  And imo that human life, even at the embrionic stage, has just as much right to life as you and I and everyone else.  A lot of people use your 'line in the sand' and the reasoning behind it to justify the killing of what I believe is still a human being from conception to your line, although granted at a very early stage of physical development. 

I can see what you are getting at with your reference to an unborn child being a parasite, for want of a better description, but I don't accept that as a valid argument to help determine where the 'line in the sand' is because even a new born is obviously a parasite because it cannot survive on its own.  To me, an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy and a new born child are both parasites, to use your description, the only difference as I see it is the extent to which both are dependant on their mothers.

I accept that you and others with simialr views to you will use that line to help justify killing another human being and you are all entitled to take that view. All I am saying is that I don't agree with your view and  line and hence that is one reason for our differing views on abortion.

I won't be around tomorrow, so I will check in on Wed or Thurs to see if there is any further discussion.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## bullmarket (13 February 2006)

Hi visual



			
				visual said:
			
		

> Bullmarket,
> I don`t want to get into an argument with you,but you are referring to infanticide,and I`m sure that you are aware that already happens.
> 
> What I am referring to is prevention,of that.(by that I mean suffering that affects many people around the life being taken)
> ...




no problem.....I to don't want to get into an argument with anyone and so I've been careful to give the reasons behind my views so others can see where I am coming from and they can then either discuss, agree, disagree or just ponder.

It looks like we agree in principle but the extent of our agreeing varies.

I hope you are at least reasonably happy with your life now after your difficult past.  And I hope that your life now vindicates your parents' decision to not have aborted you if they had considered it.

Best wishes and I hope things turn out well for you.

bullmarket 

ps... I won't be around tomorrow so I'll check in on Wed or Thurs to see if there is any further discussion in this thread (somehow I think there will be   )


----------



## visual (13 February 2006)

Hi Bullmarket,
sorry ,I really wish I hadnt said that,I suppose we all have our own burdens and I really didnt intend to publicise mine.I was off topic.Again accept my apologies


----------



## Bobby (13 February 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Hi Bullmarket,
> sorry ,I really wish I hadnt said that,I suppose we all have our own burdens and I really didnt intend to publicise mine.I was off topic.Again accept my apologies




Visual ,
You don't need to apologise to anyone , I think You may have more guts then many hard men iv'e known.

Your a good human Visual !  
Look after yourself.

Regards Bob.


----------



## Julia (13 February 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Hi Bullmarket,
> sorry ,I really wish I hadnt said that,I suppose we all have our own burdens and I really didnt intend to publicise mine.I was off topic.Again accept my apologies



Visual:

Don't be apologetic.  I'm sure your personal comment was met with nothing other than compassion by any of us reading it.

You've made a valuable contribution to this and other threads, so it would seem that you've had the strength and courage to regard your parents' attitude as simply something to be overcome.  Good for you.

All the best.

Julia


----------



## Julia (13 February 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi Prospector
> 
> 
> 
> ...




bullmarket:

We still don't seem to get our lines of communication clear.

In your post above you have clearly stated that you would decide (if you could) that the embryo should live.  I really just don't see how this ties in with your statement that:

  "I cannot support capital punishment as *I do not believe anyone has the right to decide who lives or dies* except in the case of where one's own life is being threatened for whatever reason".

I appreciate that the above is a statement from another thread, but don't see what difference that makes - it goes to the heart of how you feel.

You have suggested I'm being "picky".  Perhaps I am.  I just feel that you are contradicting yourself and you really can't have it both ways.

In reality, very little of life is as black and white as we would like it to be.  Mostly we need to think more in terms of shades of grey.
It just seems to me that the pro-choice lobby has no wish to impose their views or actions on anyone else, but the anti-abortion lobby WOULD WANT TO IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS AND ACTIONS on others.

Julia


----------



## son of baglimit (13 February 2006)

julia - just to correct an error in your post - 

'but the anti-abortion lobby WOULD WANT TO IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS AND ACTIONS on others'.

should in fact read

'but the anti-abortion lobby DEMAND TO IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS AND ACTIONS on others'.
AND CLAIM TO HAVE ANYBODY WHO'S ANYBODY FROM PRESENT DAY & THROUGHOUT HISTORY TO BACK THEIR CLAIM - ABSOLUTE BULL****.


----------



## bullmarket (14 February 2006)

Hi Julia



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> bullmarket:
> 
> We still don't seem to get our lines of communication clear.
> 
> ...




Mrs bullmarket and I arrived back home about 1/2 an hour ago and she said I can have 15 mins max to see what the market did today and do whatever I need to do on the pc so I'll have to be quick 

_I would have thought that from all my earlier posts in this thread and from the other thread you 'borrowed' my comment above from, that it was crystal clear that I believe human life is sacrosanct and inviolable from the moment of conception and that this belief forms the premiss for all my earlier posts in this thread and the other one._

I also believe you knew full well what I meant in the other thread and in this one.   I see your attempt to extract a portion of a sentence I made in the other thread and isolate it out of context from the rest of my post and to then suggest to me I wasn't being consistent, as simply an attempt to twist what I said or deliberately misinterpret what I said to try to gain a cheap point....sorry but I'm not into mind games and so won't play. 

If you are still confused on where I stand or what the premiss for my posts in this and the other thread is, then I hope this post makes it crystal clear.  If it doesn't then so be it.  I don't believe I have been inconsistent in anyway whatsoever, but if you choose to believe that I am then that is fine as you are entitled to believe that but it doesn't concern me at all as you are in a very small minority, from my discussions here and elsewhere,  who fail to see what I have been saying and I can't make my views any clearer than I already have.  Of the overwhelming majority who have understood what I have been saying I would say at a rough guess the count is about 50-50 agreeing/disagreeing with me.

Now I only have about 7 mins left before mrs bullmarket pulls the power chord from the wall socket so I better go check up on a few other things 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## visual (14 February 2006)

[QUOTENow I only have about 7 mins left before mrs bullmarket pulls the power chord from the wall socket so I better go check up on a few other things 

cheers

bullmarket[/QUOTE]

Bullmarket,thanks for that it really brought a smile to my face,well no actually i`m laughing,
Hi mrs.Bullmarket.


----------



## wayneL (14 February 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Now I only have about 7 mins left before mrs bullmarket pulls the power chord from the wall socket so I better go check up on a few other things




**smiles knowingly.

:twak:


----------



## Julia (14 February 2006)

bullmarket said:
			
		

> Hi Julia
> 
> 
> 
> ...




OK.  I give up.  I simply accept that in one context(i.e. unwanted pregnancy)
 you would like to be able to say who lives , and in another context (death penalty) you  say that no one, including presumably yourself, should be able to say who lives and who dies.

I've just run out of energy in the face of all your volume of words, bullmarket.

My passionate defence of the right of a woman to decide whether or not she takes a pregnancy to term and has the baby originated from a relative of mine, many years ago.  She was aged 15 at the time and found herself pregnant as a result of being raped.  Her parents, both devout Catholics,
offered her no comfort and completely rejected her.  She solved the problem by drinking hydrochloric acid.  I can't begin to imagine what her death would have been like.

I just hope that no one you love ever has the misfortune to find herself with an unwanted pregnancy as it wouldn't seem she could expect any compassion from you.

I truly have nothing more to say in opposition to your comments, bullmarket.
My attempts, and those of others, to try to persuade you to allow for some  consideration of individual circumstances have met with rigid opposition and I will reserve my efforts for situations where they may have a chance of being heard with an open mind.

Julia


----------



## ghotib (15 February 2006)

Dear Julia, 

Such agonised memories from this thread. Thanks to you and to those people who've talked about the real emotions that go into the personal decisions about unplanned pregnancy and abortion. I guess it's hard for people who don't remember the days when abortion was illegal and unsafe to understand how appalling they were and what a return to them would mean. 

Love to you,

Ghoti


----------



## son of baglimit (18 February 2006)

attention tony abbott :

if i could find a picture of a hand with the middle finger extended and all the others closed, symbolising what i think of you, i would put it here.

a thankyou to those pollies who supported the idea of assisting those families ever burdened with the prospect of bringing up a severley disabled child and realising the severe cost it has on family life.

here endith the lesson.


----------



## bullmarket (18 February 2006)

Hi son of baglimit

Somehow I doubt Tony Abbot visits this forum so I doubt he'll see your cowardly attempt to personally attack him while you're cowering behind a supposed anonymous alias 

However, I do feel that he has over-personalised his views in the debate but he's entitled to his opinions regardless of what they are based on.

If you want to be taken seriously why not send him a letter, with an optional photo of your middle digit extended if you like (I can lend you a digital camera if you like ), put your real life contact details on it and sign it.  I believe you don't have the courage to send him a letter with your contact details on it 

Imo, people who personally attack others like you have while hiding behind their mum's apron (a chatroom nic) portray themselves to me as immature cowards. 

Good luck in your endeavours 

bullmarket


----------



## Julia (18 February 2006)

bullmarket

I support absolutely the comments made by Son of Baglimit.  It is Abbott himself who made the issue personal and about himself.  

How can you possibly say that Son of Baglimit would not have the "courage" to send a letter to Tony Abbott including his full name and address etc?
That is  very presumptuous on your part.  Because someone doesn't state his full name on an anonymous forum  where we mostly use nics, is no reason to draw such a conclusion.

Julia


----------



## retroaugogo (18 February 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> I support absolutely the comments made by Son of Baglimit.  It is Abbott himself who made the issue personal and about himself.
> 
> Julia




And you haven't pushed your views down peoples throats?

The humanists think that their philosophy isn't a fully fledged set of beliefs.


humanism
noun 

1. A system of thought which rejects the supernatural, any belief in a god, etc, but holds that human interests and the human mind are paramount, that humans are capable of solving the problems of the world and deciding what is or is not correct moral behaviour.
2. A cultural movement of the Renaissance period which promoted classical studies.


----------



## dutchie (18 February 2006)

Bullmarket

Sometimes parliamentary privilege is abused and is cowardly.

Cheers

Dutchie


----------



## bullmarket (18 February 2006)

Hi Julia, retro 

no problem....I just call things as I see them and I have given my reasons to support them.

so far I have not seen any verifiable information at all showing my perception of sob is wrong in any way whatsoever so I will continue to exercise my 100% right to maintain my views and express them.

*retro: * I don't believe I have shoved my views down peoples' throats at all.  I have always maintained and posted that my views are food for thought. I have vigouresly posted my views with their supporting arguments just as those did that had opposing views to me. I don't see anything wrong with that at all   But if you choose to see me as having force fed my views at all then so be it as it is of no consequence to me as I don't believe I expressed my views any more forcefully than those that expressed opposing views did to me....it's as simple as that   We are in a democracy and so the majority view usually wins out which is the way it should be.

Have a good weekend everyone 

bullmarket


----------



## retroaugogo (18 February 2006)

Bullmarket,

I wasn't referring to you.I think that you've been even handed.

I was referring to those that while debasing Tony Abbott for giving his views as ill considered and archaic basically because they follow catholic lines.

Somehow their opinions are considered,modern,humane and above all right.
They also follow basic humanistic dogma.


----------



## son of baglimit (18 February 2006)

retro - i realised your comments werent directed at bullmarket, but just maybe his upbringing, and beliefs, which often involve feelings of guilt & paranoia on all sorts of matters, got to him on this occasion......thats assuming he believes the dogma pumped out by the archaic beings within the vatican....if this is not correct i withdraw that comment.

bull - i have written many letters on many subjects, both to pollies, and various dept heads, on behalf of ourselves & others, on the constant struggle of people whose lives are destroyed with the hardship of raisings disabled children, attempting to provide them with some support. most fall on deaf ears, some get patronising replies, and some do get somewhat small results. 

the decision last week is seen by many we have spoken too already as one of the greatest decisions made within parliament in recent years.

why - because many people i know have a great desire to have more children, but the fear they have in having another disabled child stops them in their tracks. the hardship they endure already leads to all sorts of emotional frustration, and another child with 'problems' will only send them over the edge. 
the possibility of NOW being able to get pregnant, and after a scan showing severe abnormalities, not having to either go through a physically & emotionally painful abortion, but simply popping a pill & moving on to try again, WILL make a big difference to so many people out there.  
and the funny thing is, some of these people are of the catholic belief, but whose attitude to abortion has changed when unfortunately 'blessed' with a disabled child - it gives them a different perspective on life.


IS THIS MESSAGE GETTING THROUGH ??


----------



## Julia (18 February 2006)

retroaugogo said:
			
		

> Bullmarket,
> 
> I wasn't referring to you.I think that you've been even handed.
> 
> ...




No one wants to deny Tony Abbott his views.


The problem occurs when those personally held views result in decisions which affect the lives of other people.


Julia


----------



## Duckman#72 (18 February 2006)

retroaugogo said:
			
		

> I was referring to those that while debasing Tony Abbott for giving his views as ill considered and archaic basically because they follow catholic lines.
> 
> Somehow their opinions are considered,modern,humane and above all right.
> They also follow basic humanistic dogma.




Well said Retro.

Critics are quick to throw out the line - "how do you tell the mother of a severely deformed child or the victim of a rape that they cannot have an abortion". In those tragic circumstances an abortion is a given. 

However what percentage of abortions are due to these circumstances? I think Tony Abbott and his fellow crusaders are trying to suggest it will lead to more abortions, not from the unfortunate circumstances described above,  but from average "Jack and Jill" couples who find themselves pregnant. 

I don't very often agree with Bill Heffernan but in a couple of years time we might be having the same debate about RU 487 - the euthanasia pill. Do we hand that choice over to an "agency" to?

Bill Clinton is quoted as saying "abortions should be safe, legal and rare".


----------



## bullmarket (18 February 2006)

ok no problem retro 



			
				retroaugogo said:
			
		

> Bullmarket,
> 
> I wasn't referring to you.I think that you've been even handed.
> 
> ...




Your original post didn't appear, to me at least, to be addressed to anyone in particular and with you quoting Julia agreeing with sob I thought I was being included in those you aimed your post at. 

I can't recall off the top of my head if you expressed views during the debate in this thread agreeing or disagreeing with me but thank you for at least  recognising that I wasn't attempting to 'shovel' my views down anyone's throat as I posted earlier.

cheers

bullmarket 

ps.......oooops..!!!...proof reading this post I see I should probably stop using the abbreviation 'sob' for 'son of baglimit' due to the obvious other connotations


----------



## son of baglimit (18 February 2006)

no offence taken bull - and i am glad you too have a sense of humour - its unfortunate that SOME are so blinded by their points of view that they cant sometimes sit back and just laugh.

not wanting to step on ya thread julia, but can i take this opportunity to close this thread and get on with making cash.

as always its been thought provoking...serious topic, but thought provoking.


----------



## bullmarket (18 February 2006)

No problem son of baglimit 



			
				son of baglimit said:
			
		

> no offence taken bull - and i am glad you too have a sense of humour - its unfortunate that SOME are so blinded by their points of view that they cant sometimes sit back and just laugh.
> 
> not wanting to step on ya thread julia, but can i take this opportunity to close this thread and get on with making cash.
> 
> as always its been thought provoking...serious topic, but thought provoking.




I haven't taken any offence either.........I just call things as I see them.

I still stand by every point/view I have made in all my earlier posts along with my supporting arguments as I haven't yet seen any verifiable information that proves anything I have said is wrong. No offence, but your saying you have written to whoever doesn't prove anything to me. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't but until I am proven wrong I will continue to exercise my 100% right to maintain the views I have expressed in all my earlier posts.

Having said that, since we are in a democracy I accept the will of the majority vote but I like everyone else who oppose the killing of other human beings do not have to agree with it.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one 

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## wayneL (18 February 2006)

son of baglimit said:
			
		

> attention tony abbott :
> 
> if i could find a picture of a hand with the middle finger extended and all the others closed, symbolising what i think of you, i would put it here.
> 
> ...




SOB, Just look in the smilies list and you'll find this one: :fu:

or :321:

Cheers


----------



## son of baglimit (18 February 2006)

precisely bull - and i think as has been said, what offends so many of us is that so many with identical or similar thoughts to yours think it is THEIR right to dictate how our lives are determined. 

DONT CALL THEM MURDERERS, DONT CALL THEM SELFISH.

LIVE A DAY/WEEK/MONTH/YEAR IN THE LIVES OF FAMILIES WITH DISABLED CHILDREN - for some there is no light at the end of the tunnel - every day is a nightmare, and that includes those, as i said before, who DONT have more kids for fear of having another nightmare.

thanks for the tip wayne - i'll remember that in the future when someone starts a thread on 1 of those 3 taboo subjects :

POLITICS, RELIGION, AND THE GREAT PUMPKIN.


----------



## bullmarket (18 February 2006)

hi again son of bag limit 

I believe it is perfectly legitimate to see someone who chooses to kill an unborn human being, except in the case where the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother, as a murderer (in the ethical/moral sense and obviously not in the legal).  I did it in my first post in this thread and will do it again whenever I see fit.  _Just as you say others shouldn't dictate how people live their lives (and I agree), the same can be said that others shouldn't dictate what views I or others who agree with me should have or express._

*We were were all embryos, foetuses etc at one stage of our lives and so killing an unborn child is undeniably killing another human being and hence murder in at least the ethical/moral sense imo.*

But we covered all the scenarios in your last post earlier in this thread and we are now just rehashing previous views.  I posted what the options are for parents when faced with handicapped/disabled children when Julia raised the issue.

The only issue is if people agree or not.  Some will, some will not and that's the way it's always going to be.

Now, I'm not going to recopy and paste my earlier posts.  If anyone is interested in what views I have expressed in earlier posts they can use the search tool.  For me nothing has changed. 

As I said earlier, I accept the will of the majority vote but I don't agree with it.

cheers

bullmarket


----------



## rederob (18 February 2006)

It's not common knowledge but another pill was aborted in favour of RU486.
In political circles it was known as the Darn Avail pill, but the TGA knew it as RUaWASP.
Cunning scientists had used nanotechnology to infuse caricatures of a prophet onto the pills active ingredients.  If the active ingredients were attacked, the pill knew it had to go to work!
The difficulty of testing the efficacy of these pills on animals initially seemed insurmountable: Who would rats worship?  In a strange twist of fate, a brilliant young scientist known to all as JC (and you think I am taking the p!$$, but it was just a contraction of Jim Clavell) realised they would instantly recognise George Segal.  And it worked!
Quickly artists were contracted and produced caricature after caricature of prophets to be infused onto the RUaWASP pill.  Only originals could be used as the “type cast” effect – avoided by Segal – was found to significantly diminish its effectiveness. 
As the story goes, soon after approval for human use the process of “natural selection”, which was the catch cry of RUaWASP’s manufacturers, was found to be deficient.
Scientists were most concerned as there appeared nothing wrong with the ingredients, so they started examining the infused caricatures. 
To their astonishment they found the cartoonists were misdirected, and had not drawn the Messiah: Instead, it was just a naughty boy.


----------



## Ann (18 February 2006)

Hello Rederob,

Most people would probably not know you as well as I. They probably don't realize you are trying to take the mick out of them....

Just be a bit careful. This is a very serious issue for a lot of people. Particularly in rural areas where there is very little access to decent health care or counseling. 

If anyone has experienced the trauma of abortion or the turmoil of the decision, let them speak or forever hold their peace.

Anyone else should sit quietly and listen.


----------



## rederob (18 February 2006)

Ann
My Buddhist friends told me not to mention their prophet, so I did not.
They said if was known that there was a plan for peacenik vegetarians to rule the world, the CIA would be after me.

Ona serious note, I listened to a great deal of the parliamentary debate on the radio, live, as I was travelling a fair bit throughout country Queensland at the time.
I did not make an earlier contribution to this thread as, not being a woman, I felt it improper to discuss a matter that I might be sensitive to, but truly can never comprehend.
I respect the right of every woman to make decisions about their health as they see fit.  Where these rights are impinged, we must have remedies for the implications.  As the decision on the pill is now with the TGA, I pray they act in the interest of health.
Students of Australian history nowadays can read the most horrendous accounts of terminations, many self inflicted, that often ended the lives of both mother and child.
Medical practitioners are lawfully able to perform terminations in Australia, and if this procedure can be made safer, under professional guidance, we can only be better as a nation for it.


----------



## Buster (19 February 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> [Stuff Deleted]
> 
> I'd be really interested to know from everyone who takes an interest in this subject how you would have voted if you'd been a Senator today.
> 
> ...




I'm with you Julia. If a female suddenly finds herself packing a bellyfull of spare parts and wants nothing to do with it, why force it to happen?  I would have thought that the last thing we need is another sad unwanted child growing up to wander the streets at all hours of the night, sucking up the welfare, and being able to use the 'unhappy abused childhood, society is to blame' cry when it turns up for it's day in court..

Pehaps they powers that be feel we need more kids in dumpsters, floating in rivers dressed in a plastic bag or rolled into a dam whilst fastened securely in the back seat..

I'm sure many will find my view simplistic, but hey, I for one am a fan of  Occam's razor..

For info, I'm Married with two children, but I had them well before you got paid thousands to have them.. 

Regards,

Buster


----------



## clowboy (20 February 2006)

some light humor for this thread.

Got sent it in an email today and just had to post it. (hopefully it works)

Enjoy

Hmm file size is too large...700 only alows 150, any ideas how to post it?


----------



## clowboy (20 February 2006)

shrunk it


----------



## emma (20 February 2006)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/vote-no-cure-for-abortion-laws/2006/02/19/1140283944416.html


----------



## Prospector (20 February 2006)

Hm, thanks Emma and given that Mr Abbott now wants the church associations to provide the counselling services for pregnant women seeking abortion, the heavy guilts of the church are now to be put on to women having to make this decision.


----------



## Julia (20 February 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Hm, thanks Emma and given that Mr Abbott now wants the church associations to provide the counselling services for pregnant women seeking abortion, the heavy guilts of the church are now to be put on to women having to make this decision.




I imagine that Mr Abbott's colleagues will  make some changes to his suggestion that $60M in funding for counselling services should ALL go to the churches.
And he would have us believe that his religious affiliations and personal anti-choice beliefs do not affect his political decisions!!


Emma:
Thanks so much for posting that gorgeous photo.  Says it all, really.


Julia


----------



## Tisme (1 October 2015)

New solution to old argument:




> NEW YORK””Pro-life advocates celebrated approval of the new anti-abortion drug UR-86 by the Food and Drug Administration Tuesday, calling it a "safe and effective method" for




*clicky here*


----------

