# Abortion



## sam76 (10 September 2008)

The Vics are punching on about legalising abortion right now.

Quite frankly, I'm suprised that in this day and age it's such an issue.

IMO Abortion should be a right for every woman.


----------



## freddy2 (10 September 2008)

sam76 said:


> Quite frankly, I'm suprised that in this day and age it's such an issue.




Don't underestimate the religious nutters ability to force their fairy tale beliefs onto others.


----------



## springhill (10 September 2008)

sam76 said:


> The Vics are punching on about legalising abortion right now.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm suprised that in this day and age it's such an issue.
> 
> IMO Abortion should be a right for every woman.




Correct me if im wrong but its not abortion per se the Vics are debating, its abortion after the 24th week, which is completely different


----------



## Glen48 (10 September 2008)

We need to get ALL religions of the front page and put it on the same level as Bingo or the P&C. Religion has no place in deciding what we should do.
Then we can allow birth control sex education etc.  sadly Religion is the World's oldest profession and is here to stay.


----------



## fimmwolf (10 September 2008)

New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria: Judicial interpretations of what is “unlawful” under the Crimes Act permit abortion on maternal health grounds only.


Tasmania: Legislation is along the lines of Victoria’s judicial interpretation of “unlawful”.


Western Australia: Legislative changes have made abortion legal until 20 weeks’ gestation.


South Australia: Grounds for lawful abortion include a maternal health ground and a fetal disability ground.


Northern Territory: Has similar provisions to those of South Australia up to 14 weeks’ gestation.


Australian Capital Territory: Abortion has been removed from criminal statutes.


About 100 000 abortions are performed each year in Australia ”” more than one for every three livebirths. Less than 2% of these abortions are for fetal abnormality,the others being for social or economic reasons. And Australians support access to abortion ”” for two decades, opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Australians support women’s right to choose, and believe that forcing a woman to have an unwanted child is worse than allowing abortion. Prenatal screening is virtually universal. If a problem that is likely to lead to serious handicap is detected, most Australian women will seek an abortion, and the community overwhelmingly supports such decisions.

cited from: 

```
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_04_160804/dec10242_fm.html
```

I can find sound arguments both for and against abortion. So I don't know where to stand on this issue.


----------



## spartn (10 September 2008)

Hi Guyz 

I am okay with Abortion in Victoria, the only thing I am unhappy about is the fact that they want women to have the ability to have an abortion up to 24 weeks (6 months) in my opinion this is just wrong to me it should be around a maximum of 12 weeks. There are so many women who give birth to children way before the 9 month period. Sometimes even 8 weeks early, and to have the ability to have an abortion at 24 weeks when you should of had it at 12 weeks. Too me it then becomes a question of 'Murder' not a right.

Cheers 

Spartn

:viking:


----------



## malachii (10 September 2008)

freddy2 said:


> Don't underestimate the religious nutters ability to force their fairy tale beliefs onto others.




Why is it that if you don't agree with abortion you are automatically a religious nutter??

malachii


----------



## freddy2 (10 September 2008)

malachii said:


> Why is it that if you don't agree with abortion you are automatically a religious nutter??
> 
> malachii




You're not, if you don't try and force your opinion on others who don't believe in sky fairies. Sure members of religious communities can choose not to have abortions but why tell others what to do when it doesn't affect them. As someone stated earlier in the thread - "forcing a woman to have an unwanted child is worse than allowing abortion".


----------



## agro (10 September 2008)

against abortion unless the fetus is in early stages...

how come killing an innocent baby (especially if it is almost developed) is not a crime yet killing a fully developed adult is?

also,

i thought that australia needs the population numbers..

no wonder we are changing colour, no one is having babies



babies have no say in the matter !! once more, who is to say that these babies that are killed don't turn out to be professors


----------



## cuttlefish (10 September 2008)

If only society could be ideal ... but it itsn't.   Some women will find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and after a few days will know in their hearts that they want to nuture and raise this beautiful thing inside them in spite of it being unexpected.  Others will feel sick with the responsibility so early in life.  Others will want to have the baby but will feel pressured by their partners, parents or others in society to let it go.   Whether the baby would or would not have been born into a good, nurturing environment is always difficult to know - there are many babies born into an environment of abuse and neglect - is this the better thing for them?  Is it more likely that an unwanted baby will be born into this sort of environment than a stable nurturing one?

I don't know the answers, but until I do I'm more than happy to allow the woman, who will have the 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, 365 days a year, for the next 20 years, responsibility, to decide.


----------



## peterh (10 September 2008)

Against abortion.

Who speaks up for the unborn baby? If women are entitled to choice then why aren't the babies? Babies are not just tissue within the mothers body like an appendix for example, they are unique human beings.


----------



## Julia (10 September 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> If only society could be ideal ... but it itsn't.   Some women will find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and after a few days will know in their hearts that they want to nuture and raise this beautiful thing inside them in spite of it being unexpected.  Others will feel sick with the responsibility so early in life.  Others will want to have the baby but will feel pressured by their partners, parents or others in society to let it go.   Whether the baby would or would not have been born into a good, nurturing environment is always difficult to know - there are many babies born into an environment of abuse and neglect - is this the better thing for them?  Is it more likely that an unwanted baby will be born into this sort of environment than a stable nurturing one?
> 
> I don't know the answers, but until I do I'm more than happy to allow the woman, who will have the 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, 365 days a year, for the next 20 years, responsibility, to decide.



Cuttlefish, I was trying to decide how to express how I felt about this issue, and then I read your post.   I just don't have anything to add.   Thank you.


----------



## freddy2 (10 September 2008)

peterh said:


> Who speaks up for the unborn baby? If women are entitled to choice then why aren't the babies? Babies are not just tissue within the mothers body like an appendix for example, they are unique human beings.




Meainigless semantics. If you want to impose morality on society you are going to have to come up with logical reasons why society is better off with abortion being made illegal. For example, theft should be illegal as society would not function properly because there would be no incentive to work and be productive. A society where theft is legal is far worse than a society where theft is illegal. Why is society better off forcing a woman to have an unwanted child rather than allowing abortion?


----------



## refined silver (10 September 2008)

freddy2 said:


> Meainigless semantics. If you want to impose morality on society you are going to have to come up with logical reasons why society is better off with abortion being made illegal. For example, theft should be illegal as society would not function properly because there would be no incentive to work and be productive. A society where theft is legal is far worse than a society where theft is illegal. Why is society better off forcing a woman to have an unwanted child rather than allowing abortion?




On the basis of your logic, we should kill cripples, elderly who who no longer needed, and anyone else "we" don't consider benefits society. A short Austrian guy with a mo had the same ideas 70 yrs ago.


----------



## freddy2 (11 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> On the basis of your logic, we should kill cripples, elderly who who no longer needed, and anyone else "we" don't consider benefits society. A short Austrian guy with a mo had the same ideas 70 yrs ago.




Wow, a straw man argument and proving Godwin's Law all in 1 short post!

You totally misunderstand my point and instead reframe into what you think I said. A valid comparison would be saying is society better if it allows the killing of cripples and elderly. I would argue today's society is better off not killing cripples and elderly, as amongst many reasons who is going to decide who benefits society or not and thus is killed. There is no valid comparison here to the situation of a pregnant woman and abortion.

So again I ask the religious nutters - Why is society better off forcing a woman to have an unwanted child rather than allowing abortion?


----------



## refined silver (11 September 2008)

freddy2 said:


> Wow, a straw man argument and proving Godwin's Law all in 1 short post!
> 
> You totally misunderstand my point and instead reframe into what you think I said. A valid comparison would be saying is society better if it allows the killing of cripples and elderly. I would argue today's society is better off not killing cripples and elderly, as amongst many reasons who is going to decide who benefits society or not and thus is killed. There is no valid comparison here to the situation of a pregnant woman and abortion.
> 
> So again I ask the religious nutters - Why is society better off forcing a woman to have an unwanted child rather than allowing abortion?




No, my inference from your logic was exactly correct.

The two questions are: 

1. When does life begin?
and
2. Is human life intrinsically valuable in itself, or does society, carers, guardians, parents etc, have the right to choose whether to terminate a life of someone weak and unable to speak for themselves, and considered unnecessary by society.

As to the "religious nutters", thats about your 4th slag off on it. Not sure how you get from valuing life and protecting the innocent, to religious nutter.


----------



## freddy2 (11 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> No, my inference from your logic was exactly correct.
> 
> The two questions are:
> 
> ...




I disagree, your inference was totally wrong. My basic points are solely to do with abortion and its affect on society. It is not to do with any other situations which you try and bring into the discussion. Yes, those circimstances share some similarity but are not equivalent.

1) Meaningless and arbitrary. What is your definition of "life". I could say life begins at the "big bang" formation of the universe, or at conception, or when the sperm and eggs are formed. Is a child born without a brain defined as "life"? And once I make a definition what purpose does that serve - it adds nothing to the discussion unless you want to make statements backed up with no logic like "God tells me all life is sacred".

2) Women should have the right to terminate an unborn baby. In other case you mention, no. Most people are able to differentiate circumstances rather than lumping them together as you have done.

I get "religious nutter" because almost all people opposed to abortion and trying to force this on other people get their moraility from a god rather than logic/philosophy - ie god tells me what is moral/right/good rather than something is moral/right/good for logical reasons.


----------



## peterh (11 September 2008)

freddy2 said:


> Wow, a straw man argument and proving Godwin's Law all in 1 short post!
> 
> You totally misunderstand my point and instead reframe into what you think I said. A valid comparison would be saying is society better if it allows the killing of cripples and elderly. I would argue today's society is better off not killing cripples and elderly, as amongst many reasons who is going to decide who benefits society or not and thus is killed. There is no valid comparison here to the situation of a pregnant woman and abortion.
> 
> So again I ask the religious nutters - Why is society better off forcing a woman to have an unwanted child rather than allowing abortion?




Any society that cannot or will not defend its most vulnerable and innocent members is a society in terminal decay.

Why is there no valid comparison between killing unborn babies and killing the elderly and crippled? Killing the elderly and crippled is a logical progression from killing unwanted babies. Babies are being aborted because they are unwanted, inconvenient, unplanned, etc. It could be argued that the elderly and crippled in some cases are unwanted, inconvenient, and a burden and expense to society so we should get rid of them too.

Even so this misses the main point about abortion. Is abortion murder and thus illegal, that is the main point. If it is true that the foetus which is terminated is not really human, but is just a blob of protoplasm, or at best a potential life, then abortion is not much different than removing a tonsil. But if the foetus is a living human being, then the whole story changes.

Biology and science are pretty clear on this. At conception a wholly unique individual is formed, complete with its own genetic makeup. It is not just one more cell of the mother, but a distinct and different life. As one philosopher explains, the zygote "is completely individual, it's completely different. It's got its own genetic code. If you cloned any cell in the mother's body, you'd get a replica of Mommy. But if you cloned the zygote, you'd get a totally different person."


----------



## Green08 (11 September 2008)

peterh said:


> Any society that cannot or will not defend its most vulnerable and innocent members is a society in terminal decay.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I am speaking from Personal experience. I have an autistic son, he is 19 years old I have been by his side fitting for his rights at local and state governemnt level to access assistance which is taken for granted.  If I knew I was pregnant again with a child suffering any disability I would terminate it immediately.  I have watched his suffering and struggle through life and it has been heart wrenching at times.  That is not fair to bring a child into this world where in reality they do not receive the same assistance as others and living on the disability pension is a pure joke.  The waiting lists in some regions for speech therapy is 2 years!  Private is expensive when done on a regular basis.
> ...


----------



## gav (11 September 2008)

I am neither for or against, it is a far too complex issue for me to have a black and white answer.  For those of you who appose abortion, I ask you this:

If you (if you are female), or your partner (if you are male), or a friend/relative of yours was raped (and fell pregnant because of the rape), do you still believe that person should be forced to have the baby?


----------



## freddy2 (11 September 2008)

peterh said:


> Any society that cannot or will not defend its most vulnerable and innocent members is a society in terminal decay.




In relation to legalised abortion experience doesn't bear this out. Give one example of a country where legalised abortion has led to societal decay - you can't. That is unless "terminal decay" means less people following 2000 year morals and believing in superstitious nonsense.


----------



## refined silver (11 September 2008)

Green08 said:


> I am speaking from Personal experience. I have an autistic son, he is 19 years old I have been by his side fitting for his rights at local and state governemnt level to access assistance which is taken for granted.  If I knew I was pregnant again with a child suffering any disability I would terminate it immediately.  I have watched his suffering and struggle through life and it has been heart wrenching at times.  That is not fair to bring a child into this world where in reality they do not receive the same assistance as others and living on the disability pension is a pure joke.




Green you deserve incredible admiration for what has been a very difficult and thankless task. However I still can't agree with your conclusions.

If you are saying that life with Autism is such a struggle he would be better off dead, firstly, shouldn't your son have the right to make that decision not you? Secondly, if its true, what difference does it matter whether he is in or out of the womb when you kill him?

Thirdly, everyone keeps talking about raising a child for 20yrs. If the parent cannot cope, there is adoption. There are huge waiting lists, overseas adoption is very costly ($30k-50k in most places) and drawn out, yet there are no local babies for adoption. The govts even try to steer people to fostering instead of adoption. There are people even prepared to adopt kids/babies with disabilities.


----------



## tigerboi (11 September 2008)

*abortion:Its a womans legal right to decide*

This subject is always emotional however ive always believed that it is up to the woman to decide but after 24 weeks is way too long as with the advances in medicine many babies are born pre 24 weeks these days.

toughest decision id say any woman will make in her life,reckon us blokes should keep our heads out of it & stand by your woman & her decision if it ever came to it...tb


----------



## Pat (11 September 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> If only society could be ideal ... but it itsn't.   Some women will find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and after a few days will know in their hearts that they want to nuture and raise this beautiful thing inside them in spite of it being unexpected.  Others will feel sick with the responsibility so early in life.  Others will want to have the baby but will feel pressured by their partners, parents or others in society to let it go.   Whether the baby would or would not have been born into a good, nurturing environment is always difficult to know - there are many babies born into an environment of abuse and neglect - is this the better thing for them?  Is it more likely that an unwanted baby will be born into this sort of environment than a stable nurturing one?
> 
> I don't know the answers, but until I do I'm more than happy to allow the woman, who will have the 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, 365 days a year, for the next 20 years, responsibility, to decide.






Julia said:


> Cuttlefish, I was trying to decide how to express how I felt about this issue, and then I read your post.   I just don't have anything to add.   Thank you.




Cuttle fish I 3rd that.   

Good words there. Really good!


----------



## Green08 (11 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> Green you deserve incredible admiration for what has been a very difficult and thankless task. However I still can't agree with your conclusions.
> 
> If you are saying that life with Autism is such a struggle he would be better off dead, firstly, shouldn't your son have the right to make that decision not you? Secondly, if its true, what difference does it matter whether he is in or out of the womb when you kill him?




I will forgive your lack of understanding of my situation.  I obviously not kill him now. But had I known when I was pregnant and known the full impact of his disability and struggle he has which by not fault of his own, has impacted immensly on my family, Yes I would have terminated.  Husband walked out couldn't cope, refused to pay maintancence, his sister has been patiently waiting for her time with me.  He is acutely aware of his autistism and has said several times "Mummy, take austism away"  How do you respond. I can't I have told him I can't and he knows that I love and adore him.  I had my children young and wanted them. Now they are here I will do all I can to look after them.  However comments like yours are very self centered and over look the entire scope of the impact.  The choice is mine and it will always be mine alone. It is my body, my life and I live with my choices no-one else.


----------



## Green08 (11 September 2008)

All of you watch George Calin give a really performance of this issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU&feature=related

Pro Life is Anti-Woman - George Carlin


----------



## Julia (11 September 2008)

> I will forgive your lack of understanding of my situation.  I obviously not kill him now. But had I known when I was pregnant and known the full impact of his disability and struggle he has which by not fault of his own, has impacted immensly on my family, Yes I would have terminated.  Husband walked out couldn't cope, refused to pay maintancence, his sister has been patiently waiting for her time with me.  He is acutely aware of his autistism and has said several times "Mummy, take austism away"  How do you respond. I can't I have told him I can't and he knows that I love and adore him.  I had my children young and wanted them. Now they are here I will do all I can to look after them.  However comments like yours are very self centered and over look the entire scope of the impact.  The choice is mine and it will always be mine alone. It is my body, my life and I live with my choices no-one else.





Green, I can't begin to imagine the difficulties you must have faced.  All I can offer is respect for all that you say and admiration for your courage and energy.

For anyone to take a morally superior tone regarding your view that if you'd known what was ahead you would have had an abortion just demonstrates their insensitivity.   No one has the right to judge any woman in such a situation.

All the best.


----------



## refined silver (11 September 2008)

Green08 said:


> The choice is mine and it will always be mine alone. It is my body, my life and I live with my choices no-one else.




I say again my congratulations and respect at your incredible self-sacrifice and love.

A woman can do whatever she likes to her own body, nobody disagrees. The problem is that a baby is not her own body, it is someone else, and its not her own life, its someone elses who is a unique individual with their own rights. If it is ok to kill a baby in the womb, why not out of it as well?


----------



## cuttlefish (11 September 2008)

I can see the motivation for your view but I really think that there is a lot of idealism embodied within it.

Society is not so simple.  Walk a mile in someone elses shoes before making judgement imo.  There are reports every second day of children being neglected or abused - why risk bringing more children into these sorts of environments - causing harm to both the child and the mother responsible for bringing it into the world.  Life is precious and bringing a child into an environment where it is not wanted and where there is nobody able to commit to nurturing it and raising it could also be argued as being a cruel thing to do - to both the mother and the child.


----------



## Pat (11 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> A woman can do whatever she likes to her own body, nobody disagrees. The problem is that a baby is not her own body...



Mate your asking for it.


----------



## blogs (11 September 2008)

cuttlefish said:


> If only society could be ideal ... but it itsn't.   Some women will find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and after a few days will know in their hearts that they want to nuture and raise this beautiful thing inside them in spite of it being unexpected.  Others will feel sick with the responsibility so early in life.  Others will want to have the baby but will feel pressured by their partners, parents or others in society to let it go.   Whether the baby would or would not have been born into a good, nurturing environment is always difficult to know - there are many babies born into an environment of abuse and neglect - is this the better thing for them?  Is it more likely that an unwanted baby will be born into this sort of environment than a stable nurturing one?
> 
> I don't know the answers, but until I do I'm more than happy to allow the woman, who will have the 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, 365 days a year, for the next 20 years, responsibility, to decide.





The answer is simple-ask ANY child born into ANY enviroment, whether it be abuse, war or poverty and ask them if they would rather be dead. I think you will find the over whelming majority are happy that they are alive regardless of the world they are born into.

Pro abortionists are selfish, self centred sad individuals. Its a human life and has the right to live, end of story. Some people try to argue even the rape line (which I can to some extenst sympathise with) that abortion is justified. Think about it this way-so you have just found out your life was created via a rape and now you are to be put to death, happy? Or would you rather live regardless?


----------



## blogs (11 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> what difference does it matter whether he is in or out of the womb when you kill him?




Very good point, out of sight out of mind. People always look for the easy option (not directed at anyone-just a general observation...)


----------



## jono_oz (11 September 2008)

I'm just curious, are you a man or a woman blogs?


----------



## cuttlefish (11 September 2008)

blogs said:


> Pro abortionists are selfish, self centred sad individuals.




I think by descending into generic personal attacks you've demonstrated your own character. Stick to debating the issue rather than making general attacks on the character of those that have a differing view to yours.


----------



## blogs (11 September 2008)

jono_oz said:


> I'm just curious, are you a man or a woman blogs?




Why should that matter? Im debating wether a baby has the right to life, or whether its death is justified due to the possibility of simply 'inconveniencing' the parent/s.....

I used to be for abortions, when my Dad got my psycho step mother pregnant we all pleaded for him to get an abortion. That 'feutus' has now grown into my much loved baby sister and I shudder at the thought I even contempated the thought of having her terminated. See the simple fact is a feutus IS a life, and left alone it WILL be a person. That person has the right to live, full stop. No matter how sh!tty a life they might be coming into, Im sure they would prefer at least the chance at life, no matter how bad it may be.....


----------



## Pat (11 September 2008)

blogs said:


> Pro abortionists are selfish, self centred sad individuals.



Thats a pretty harsh statement and generalized at that. I think you mean..."I think abortion is a selfish, self centered and sad act". Which is more than fine, but do what you with your life. A god given right so to speak. Remember freedom?


----------



## refined silver (11 September 2008)

> =Pat;334370] I think you mean..."I think abortion is a selfish, self centered and sad act". Which is more than fine, but do what you with your life.



I agree Pat that's a much much better wording. 

But to be fair, a careful reading of the blog will show that some on the other side of the argument are not adverse to heavy handed responses either, labelling anyone who disagrees with them as religious nutters, Ã¯nsensitive, morally superior, judgemental, and so on.


----------



## freddy2 (11 September 2008)

blogs said:


> Its a human life and has the right to live, end of story.




Why? If this is in fact true why do we have self-defense laws, police carry guns or a need for armed forces? Obviously in some cases it is acceptable to take a life. Were we morally wrong to stop Japan invading Australia during WW2 by killing them?


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2008)

See, sam,  we should have a third option mate 

Only women should be allowed to vote (imo)


----------



## white_goodman (11 September 2008)

all i know is if my gf gets preggo she will be getting a smasmortion and the smasmortion clinic


----------



## fordxbt (11 September 2008)

Abortion: It really brings out the child in you.
another one.
Why can't you fool an aborted foetus?



Because it wasn't born yesterday.


----------



## SM Junkie (11 September 2008)

Talk about a contentious issue, it is one of those issues that bring out very strong opions and unfortunately some pretty poor arguments by some.  It is not a black and white issue, but lives in the grey area of moral decisions making.

No one has the right to judge a women who decides to terminate a pregnancy, for the majority it is one of the most difficult decisions they will face. I'm just thankful that we have the right to make a choice that is best for our own circumstances.

I'd rather see a pregnancy terminated than see the impact of a child that is abused and/or neglected.  

I enjoyed your logic cuttlefish and Green08 I appreciated your reflection.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2008)

well I posted this a while back - and what I was trying to say was that , imo, it's secret women's business. (!)  

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=197836


----------



## Julia (11 September 2008)

SM Junkie said:


> T
> I'd rather see a pregnancy terminated than see the impact of a child that is abused and/or neglected.




This is the point that is so often ignored by anti-abortion people.
Just today I heard the statistics quoted regarding the number of children in care.  It was many times the number of available foster carers.

Rather than saying a foetus has unquestioned right to progress to becoming a person, I'd like the decision to be made on the basis of the likelihood that baby has of being born into a loving environment.

In an ideal world, all conceptions would be the result of planning in a loving relationship.   But that simply isn't always what happens.

This question is like many other issues which affect the individual.
My ideal society would be one where the rights of the individual are completely respected, and where no person feels obliged to try to inflict their views on others.


----------



## skyQuake (11 September 2008)

I agree with what Vic is doing. After 24weeks, all the arguments about pro-choice and bad environment become obsolete. The mother had a chance to make the decision to abort and has simply let it pass. 
Barring extenuating circumstances, the fetus now then has a right to live..


----------



## blogs (12 September 2008)

SM Junkie said:


> I'd rather see a pregnancy terminated than see the impact of a child that is abused and/or neglected.




lol, as Ive said before-ask any abused or neglected child and ask them if they would rather be dead, ask them if they would rather have never had the chance at life, no matter how unsavoury it may be. Simple as that.....Its easy for you to say you would rather them be terminated, what about if it was you who was to be terminated? I think some of you are forgetting these are lifes you are terminating, they WILL be a human life if you dont terminate them. Perhaps its easier for you to justify it by ignoring that fact?


----------



## blogs (12 September 2008)

skyQuake said:


> I agree with what Vic is doing. After 24weeks, all the arguments about pro-choice and bad environment become obsolete. The mother had a chance to make the decision to abort and has simply let it pass.
> Barring extenuating circumstances, the fetus now then has a right to live..





6 MONTHS... I wonder if people even know what a 6 month old feutus looks like? Its alive, its a living human being!!! Its a person, and it is a life with un limited potential....I cant believe people can be so blase about this stuff? Is it just becasue you cant see it, that you dont have to see a living human get sucked out, ripped apart, that its o.k? Sorry to get graphic but thats the truth of it....


----------



## Pat (12 September 2008)

blogs said:


> 6 MONTHS... I wonder if people even know what a 6 month old feutus looks like? Its alive, its a living human being!!! Its a person, and it is a life with un limited potential....I cant believe people can be so blase about this stuff? Is it just becasue you cant see it, that you dont have to see a living human get sucked out, ripped apart, that its o.k? Sorry to get graphic but thats the truth of it....



I completely understand what your saying blogs. Essentially the mother owns it, until it is born. The carrier of the foetus bears all the responsibility and therefore decides what rights her body does and doesn’t have. Including what is inside it.


----------



## moxy (12 September 2008)

24 weeks is far too late to be having an abortion...regardless of the situation.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 September 2008)

Green08 said:


> I am speaking from Personal experience. ...




Brave post green, (#19) spoken like a truly caring person - as carers are and have to be it seems ..
I'm sure many here empathise and hear you loud and clear.


----------



## gav (12 September 2008)

Blogs if a loved one of yours was raped and fell pregnant, do you think they should still have the baby?


----------



## blogs (12 September 2008)

Gav I understand that is a tough one, but if someone is raped I would have thought this would be a non issue? Surely they would have had the morning after pill OR taking every measure there is to ensure they dont fall pregnant. 

Anyway this is too sensative and touchy a topic, Im out...


----------



## ZzzzDad (12 September 2008)

Please read this article about Dr. Bernard Nathanson, it is about America's most famous abortionist, who saw the light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson


As a younger man, he had been strongly pro-choice, and he claims that he performed an abortion on a woman who had become pregnant by him.[1] He later gained national attention by then becoming one of the founding members of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America. He worked with Betty Friedan and others for the legalization of abortion in the United States. Their efforts essentially succeeded with the Roe v Wade decision. He was also for a time the director of the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (CRASH), New York's largest abortion clinic. Nathanson has written that he was responsible for over 75,000 abortions throughout his pro-choice career.

*The development of ultrasound, however, in the 1970s led him to reconsider his views on abortion. He is now a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement. In 1984, he made the documentary The Silent Scream which showed an abortion from the perspective of ultrasound. His second documentary Eclipse of Reason dealt with late-term abortions. He has also stated that the numbers he once cited for NARAL concerning the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions were "false figures".[2]*

__________________________________________

I think the development of ultrasound has proven the fact that a fetus is in fact a baby.  Out of sight, out of mind doesn't cut it any more.  The proof is in the ultrasound pictures.  

Look, I realize that abortion will never be outlawed, there is not enough support for that, it will never happen.  But, people should always put more thought into what they are actually doing when they decide to abort.  You can't take it back afterwards, and many women are really affected by abortions - for the rest of their lives.  Adoption should really be the answer, if you ask me.


----------



## SM Junkie (12 September 2008)

> as Ive said before-ask any abused or neglected child and ask them if they would rather be dead,



.

Have you?  Because if you had then I doubt you would be making these comments. 

Well I have worked with these children and I have worked with adults that have survived.  I've seen the kids that will never be able to function in society, the kids that have been permanently disabled at the hands of their parents and yes the kids that have died.



> ask them if they would rather have never had the chance at life, no matter how unsavoury it may be



 I can't believe that you think this is ok.  Children have died and continue to die in the most tragic of circumstances, I doubt you would even be able to comprehend how inhumane some people can be and believe me there are far worse ways to die then through a termination.  

Whether you believe termination is right or wrong is really of no consequence. No doubt you will make decisions in your life that are right for you and you just need to allow others the right to make decisions about their own life regardless if you agree or not.


----------



## ZzzzDad (12 September 2008)

There may be some percentage that wish they had never been born, but far more would wish to have been born.  There are many people that grow up in dire circumstances, even torturous abusive circumstances, that actually grow up to live happy productive lives.  They get past it.  Some people are very resilient.


----------



## gav (12 September 2008)

blogs said:


> Gav I understand that is a tough one, but if someone is raped I would have thought this would be a non issue? Surely they would have had the morning after pill OR taking every measure there is to ensure they dont fall pregnant.
> 
> Anyway this is too sensative and touchy a topic, Im out...




Why would it be a "non issue"?  They are still unwanted, and as you said, its still a human being...  How can you have one set of rules for one unborn baby, then an entirely different for another? Its not the babies fault how he/she was created.  Whether a lady has a one night stand and falls pregnant, or falls pregnant from rape, it doesnt change the fact that there is a person inside her.

I am neither for or against, it is too complex of an issue.


----------



## blogs (12 September 2008)

Gav you are missing my point-it would be a non issue because of the day after pill.....

But yes it is a very very complex issue. I think some take it to lightly


----------



## cuttlefish (12 September 2008)

blogs said:


> Gav you are missing my point-it would be a non issue because of the day after pill.....
> 
> But yes it is a very very complex issue. I think some take it to lightly




Yes but not all rape victims get up the next morning after being raped (or co-erced into a sexual situation they subsequently regret) and march promptly down to the Dr in a business like fashion and request a day-after pill.  

Not addressing it immediately would be more likely imo to apply to younger women/teenagers who may not be as confident or assertive and may be too ashamed or scared to approach anyone about it and instead cross their fingers and hope they're not pregnant.  

So if someone in this situation does subsequently find they are pregnant and then approaches someone about it are they now penalised for not being assertive enough to come forward in the first place and forced to continue the unwanted pregnancy?

Also at what point is it a 'rape' and acceptable thus to terminate the pregnancy vs it being voluntary.  If an inexperienced teenager gets really drunk and is pressured into a sexual situation that they later regret do they have to have evidence of physical violence before we allow them to have an abortion.  Does the rape have to be tested in court?

As you say the issue is complex - which is why generic legislation isn't the best way to address it.  This is why it is best decided by a woman in consultation with her own support network (which may include her partner of course), her Dr and possibly professional counselling.


----------



## gav (12 September 2008)

exactly what i was getting at cuttlefish..


----------



## refined silver (12 September 2008)

gav said:


> Why would it be a "non issue"?  They are still unwanted, and as you said, its still a human being...  How can you have one set of rules for one unborn baby, then an entirely different for another? Its not the babies fault how he/she was created.  Whether a lady has a one night stand and falls pregnant, or falls pregnant from rape, it doesnt change the fact that there is a person inside her.
> 
> I am neither for or against, it is too complex of an issue.




Thats true. Its not the babies fault how it was conceived, and to truly be consistent, if someone believes that an unborn baby has the right to a chance in life, then even for rape, it is the same, even if its put out for adoption straightaway. I know this is about as difficult as it can get. Its also pretty rare because the trauma of rape very rarely leads to pregnancies, but it does happen. I once heard a doctor speak on the subject who herself was the product of a conception that occurred through rape.

But if that's difficult, what about this one...


----------



## refined silver (12 September 2008)

Under the current laws, there is the possibility that instead of an abortion a baby is born alive. 

In fact a 10 yr British study revealed 1 in 30 aborted fetuses were born alive. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6574873.stm

While some were not viable, some were. Currently once the baby is out of the womb the doctors by law should do whatever they can to save it. There is current debate now as to whether live aborted births should receive the same care as miscarriages and even be in the same part of hospital as all the neo-natal equipment. Here are some possibilities.

- Should the same team that performed the abortion also try to resusitate or care for the baby if it is born alive?
- If so, how do they feel if the abortion goes wrong and the baby is born alive? Are they failures? Or should they rejoice at the new baby?
- Should there be two teams there, a "death" team for the abortion and a "life" team if the baby is alive when born?
- Should there be competition between the two teams and scores kept?
- If the baby is born alive should the "death" team cheer the "life" team as it tries to save the baby?
- Should the "life" team cheer the "death" team on as they try to abort the baby or should they seek to sabatage their efforts?
- Should the two teams be friends and get together after work for drinks? If so what would they talk about? 
- Should they be enemies?  Could they maintain a perfectly professional relationship when each has opposite goals?
- Should the "life" team report the "death" team if they cheat and try to kill the baby after it is born?

And so on. The current laws are far from perfect ethically.

On that note, I think I'm out of here!


----------



## Julia (14 September 2008)

refined silver said:


> . Its also pretty rare because the trauma of rape very rarely leads to pregnancies




Really?   Could you please post some statistics which confirm this statement?

Truly, Refined Silver, I just can't believe your utter insensitivity in terms of the situation of a raped woman.   Why should she have to relive such a vile experience every day for nine months, watching her body change, being unable to continue with whatever her plans might have been?

In your crusade to save a foetus you are quite prepared to ignore the plight of the woman concerned.   If I were that woman, I'd say to you: "Mind your own business.  Being raped is an unimaginably terrible experience.  You have no right to expect me to carry a child as a result of such an assault."


----------



## tigerboi (14 September 2008)

*refined silver you are way out of line*

These statements show you have some massive problems,there are some very inappropriate things here that you have said,you need to have a very good look at yourself...in fact mod should pull this...tb




refined silver said:


> - Should the same team that performed the abortion also try to resusitate or care for the baby if it is born alive?
> - If so, how do they feel if the abortion goes wrong and the baby is born alive? Are they failures? Or should they rejoice at the new baby?
> - Should there be two teams there, a "death" team for the abortion and a "life" team if the baby is alive when born?
> - Should there be competition between the two teams and scores kept?
> ...


----------



## peterh (14 September 2008)

Julia said:


> Really?   Could you please post some statistics which confirm this statement?
> 
> Truly, Refined Silver, I just can't believe your utter insensitivity in terms of the situation of a raped woman.   Why should she have to relive such a vile experience every day for nine months, watching her body change, being unable to continue with whatever her plans might have been?
> 
> In your crusade to save a foetus you are quite prepared to ignore the plight of the woman concerned.   If I were that woman, I'd say to you: "Mind your own business.  Being raped is an unimaginably terrible experience.  You have no right to expect me to carry a child as a result of such an assault."




I have also heard that it is rare for rape cases to lead to pregnancy, though I don't know the original source.

As mentioned rape cases are about as difficult as it gets, but discussing this appropriately is not being insensitive. Even in these horrendous circumstances a unique human being is created who has the right to live. Babies have been brought up and loved, even from these beginnings. The option of adoption was also mentioned earlier.

She would need a lot of support and care from family, friends, counselors and other professionals during this extremely tough time.


----------



## gav (14 September 2008)

peterh said:


> I have also heard that it is rare for rape cases to lead to pregnancy, though I don't know the original source.
> 
> As mentioned rape cases are about as difficult as it gets, but discussing this appropriately is not being insensitive. Even in these horrendous circumstances a unique human being is created who has the right to live. Babies have been brought up and loved, even from these beginnings.* The option of adoption was also mentioned earlier.*
> 
> She would need a lot of support and care from family, friends, counselors and other professionals during this extremely tough time.




Why should a woman who has endured something as traumatic as rape raped still have to go through 9 months of agony knowing that a part of her attacker is GROWING INSIDE HER.  If she chooses to have the baby, whether she raises it herself or gives it up for adoption, would take a very, very strong woman.  But I for one dont believe she should be forced to carry that baby.  It should be her choice.


----------



## white_crane (16 September 2008)

Things to ponder:
*What if the father wants the child, but the mother doesn't?  What rights should the father have?

*What if a person is raped and falls pregnant? (it might be rare, but it is quite possible)
AND that person is only 14 or 15? (or younger)
AND the victim is related to the rapist?

(in most sexual abuse cases, the victim and abuser are related; also closely related parents can produce children with physical/mental impairments, see also next)

*What if the person's lifestyle (eg drug addicts, alcoholics) means that the baby will be at risk of being born with severe disabilities? (obviously the women can be treated, but will they follow through with it?)

*What if one/both of the parents are physically/intellectually impaired?
OR have mental illness?

*Also with regard to unwanted pregnancies (from consensual intercourse) isn't it time that people started taking responsibility for their actions?  Abortion seems like the easy way out.  Does anyone know the process and/or how easy/hard it is to adopt out a baby?  Could this be a viable option? Give the child to someone who will give it a loving and nurturing home.

Really, this is a complex issue with no simple answer.


----------



## sam76 (24 September 2008)

VICTORIA's 15 Catholic hospitals are likely to tell their doctors and nurses to break the law rather than refer women to abortion providers.

A meeting of Catholic hospital heads yesterday unanimously agreed to oppose the state's proposed abortion law, to be debated by Parliament's upper house next month.

The bill would require doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion to refer a woman to someone with no such objection.

"We cannot in good faith provide an abortion or a referral to an abortion provider," said Martin Laverty, chief executive of Catholic Health Australia, who spoke on behalf of the meeting.

"We will not require our doctors to comply with the law. In the event that the bill is passed we will ensure that staff are able to examine their consciences," he said.

Asked directly if hospitals would advise doctors to break the law, he did not respond. Asked if it was likely, he said: "I would not argue with that headline."

http://www.theage.com.au/national/catholic-hospitals-threaten-to-defy-abort-law-20080923-4ml0.html


----------



## Julia (24 September 2008)

Well, to be fair, I suppose if you were pregnant and went to a Catholic Hospital for advice, you wouldn't really expect anything else, would you?

If I were looking for an abortion, a Catholic institution of any sort is the last place I'd go.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (24 September 2008)

As men are often neglected in society this is an important point:



> *What if the father wants the child, but the mother doesn't? What rights should the father have?


----------



## pixel (5 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Really?   Could you please post some statistics which confirm this statement?
> 
> Truly, Refined Silver, I just can't believe your utter insensitivity in terms of the situation of a raped woman.   Why should she have to relive such a vile experience every day for nine months, watching her body change, being unable to continue with whatever her plans might have been?
> 
> In your crusade to save a foetus you are quite prepared to ignore the plight of the woman concerned.   If I were that woman, I'd say to you: "Mind your own business.  Being raped is an unimaginably terrible experience.  You have no right to expect me to carry a child as a result of such an assault."



 +1, Julia
especially that  "Mind your own business."
There are too many "missionary" types around that try to enforce their own views on the lives of others in a generic way. Whether a woman wants another life to start growing inside her or not is her business and hers alone.

If we can start from that basis, all other considerations become much easier to deal with:
Does she have a partner? If so, does she owe him a responsibility - i.e. did they both *intend* to start a new life? Are they both mature enough to care for a child? By what time does she forfeit her right to "change her mind" from yes to no?

These questions should be answered in a rational way, weighing up the rights *and responsibilities* of the maximum of *three *"persons" involved. If one allows unrelated interest groups to toss their religious beliefs and personal emotions into the melee, that will only confuse the issue and make a satisfactory solution harder - if not impossible.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 November 2011)

To throw another one into the mix...

If it is being argued about the "rights of the unborn child" in the context of abortion, then surely that argument also applies in terms of general health?

If it is to be illegal to abort then what about mothers who drink (not advisable at ANY level whilst pregnant when you understand how it affects the body), smoke etc? It may not result in death, but FAS or any one of the multitude of possible nasty outcomes are anything but nice.

I see a broader issue here than simply abortion.


----------



## sails (5 November 2011)

If abortion is necessary, I would like to see it performed VERY early in the pregnancy.

At the age of 17 and not long started in nursing, I saw a miscarried foetus of about four months.  I remember I got into trouble because I asked what to do with the "baby" that was sitting in a kidney dish in the pan room.  The sister in charge (grumpy old thing too) blew me up because it wasn't a "baby".

But, I still remember this tiny little thing so well formed with such tiny little arms and legs. While they are not viable on their own, I would think killing them in the womb would cause much distress and is cruel in our modern society.

I don't know at how many weeks would be less distressful for the unborn child. But it does seem a whole lot worse than swatting a pesky fly.

PS - I haven't voted because there aren't enough choices.  A straight yes or no doesn't allow for rape, medical intervention and other factors.


----------



## tollbridge (5 November 2011)

freddy2 said:


> Meainigless semantics. If you want to impose morality on society you are going to have to come up with logical reasons why society is better off with abortion being made illegal. For example, theft should be illegal as society would not function properly because there would be no incentive to work and be productive. A society where theft is legal is far worse than a society where theft is illegal. Why is society better off forcing a woman to have an unwanted child rather than allowing abortion?




Personally I think the idea of abortion should be between the mother and father of the baby making me pro-choice. The argument posted by Freddy2 however is weak and based on nothing but his own thoughts.

How can you seriously compare the legalisation of abortion with the criminalisation of theft on the basis of what is good for society? That is absolutely laughable! You asked the question "Why is society better off forcing a woman to have an unwanted child rather than allowing abortion?" expecting it to be rhetorical and supporting your theory 100%. Well it doesn't! A 13 year old could easily answer your question by stating that without human life, society ceases to exist. If you look at it from societies point of view (which is what you asked) then the answer could easily be that society benefits considerably from new human life and is imperative to the very future of and ongoing development towards a better society. Can you see how flawed your argument is?

Of course "societies" answer is silly and doesn't address the individual needs of the mother and father at hand. The real reason why it *should* be legalised is exactly why it *has* been (mental health). Instead of focussing on "meainigless (sic) semantics" and "imposing laws based on morality" (all laws are based on morality) focus on the potential threats towards the overall wellbeing of individuals if a mother is placed in such a position. 

My arguments for abortion are based on the following:

The potential for an increase in crime when the mother cannot economically afford to feed her baby.
The stress placed on an already struggling mental health system to deal with the depression, stress and other issues a mother suffers from when being forced to have a baby against her desire.
The availability of abortion throughout Australia and the availability of Schedule 9 drugs such as RU486 makes it a law that is nearly impossible to enforce.
The current laws regarding adoption and the paperwork required to be completed make it a difficult task to see through to completion for a mother who is already struggling with other life issues.

If you were serious about benefiting _society_ then you'd understand that this is a very emotional issue for some people and be a little more sensitive in your arguments rather than speaking out against those who have a differing opinion to _yourself_. Like I said at the beginning of the post - I'm on your side of the coin with this particular issue. But you need to realise that many people feel very strongly the other way whether due to religious or personal reasons and as part of a good _society_ then you need to respect their opinion by not comparing them to people who want to legalise theft. If you want to loose an argument and not change people's opinion - you're doing an excellent job. If you want to have a decent debate about it and show people a different side of the picture learn some manners, respect and common sense.

Alex


----------



## Julia (5 November 2011)

sails said:


> But, I still remember this tiny little thing so well formed with such tiny little arms and legs. While they are not viable on their own, I would think killing them in the womb would cause much distress and is cruel in our modern society.



Distress to whom, Sails?  
Have you considered the distress to the pregnant woman if she does not want to have a child?  And all the ramifications for about twenty years of her having to take responsibility for a child she may not be able to care for?  She may not have parents of her own who are able to step into the breach and effectively mother the child.
Who takes responsibility for the child then?  




> I don't know at how many weeks would be less distressful for the unborn child. But it does seem a whole lot worse than swatting a pesky fly.



That's rather an odd analogy.   To imply that having an unwanted child is similar to putting up with a pesky fly seems a bit unreasonable to me.

This is probably a topic about which some of us will never find common ground.
People who have, e.g. religious reasons for objecting to termination won't ever find it acceptable to change their views.
And people who strongly believe in a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body will not succumb to anyone else telling them what they may or may not do.

It's just like euthanasia.  Religious people believe only their God may determine when they cease to exist.  Those who don't accept religious beliefs can see no reason why the 'other side' are so determined that they must live out their days in often unbearable suffering.


----------



## tothemax6 (6 November 2011)

Just copying this over from the other thread, the gist of it is "abortion is murder, religions are irrelevant".



> The fetus is either a person or it is not. If it is, it is murder, if it is not, it is a medical procedure. It is the former.
> By no moral principle can the size or location of a person modify his rights, nor does tissue attachment to another human modify his rights, so long as he made no actions to enter these situations himself.
> The most obvious definition of 'when my life began' is 'when did I begin to exist as a thing'. This implies two things: a unique embodiment as an entity, a transition to this embodiment from a null state. This is most easily determinable by following a persons life course from now backwards (since 'now' clearly contains that person as a unique embodiment). The transition point the becomes clear: 'the persons cell count transitioned between 0 and 1'.
> Life begins at conception, no religious argument needed.




As an additional rebuttal to the 'whats best for the mother' argument, e.g.


tollbridge said:


> My arguments for abortion are based on the following:
> 
> The potential for an increase in crime when the mother cannot economically afford to feed her baby.
> The stress placed on an already struggling mental health system to deal with the depression, stress and other issues a mother suffers from when being forced to have a baby against her desire.
> ...



This applies to a born baby also. If a mother stabs her baby after it has left the womb, its a monstrous murder, but if she had a doctor stab it (youtube abortion to see how a third trimester abortion is performed) the day prior, some jurisdictions declare this perfectly legal. The world of 2011 is truly a "2+2=5,4,100 whatever" world.
The point is, tollbridge, that just because a person can declare themselves 'a mother', that does not suddenly make them entitled to commit violent crime. If we could kill anyone who we consider a stress to us, it would be a exciting world wouldn't it?

I am reminded of the hilarious (I think it was a 'chasers war') skit, in which a woman asks for a 'very late term abortion', and brings in her 20y/old stay at home son, on the grounds that he is a burden on her.


----------



## Miss Hale (6 November 2011)

malachii said:


> Why is it that if you don't agree with abortion you are automatically a religious nutter??
> 
> malachii




Exactly, you don't have to be a religious nutter or even religious at all to disagree with abortion.


----------



## DB008 (6 November 2011)

IMO, up to the women/persons involved to decide. 

I don't tell you which milk to buy, why should l have 'any' involvement in any other private affairs of you. Your choice.


----------



## Julia (6 November 2011)

Miss Hale said:


> Exactly, you don't have to be a religious nutter or even religious at all to disagree with abortion.



If you're referring to my post above, what I said was:


> This is probably a topic about which some of us will never find common ground.
> People who have, e.g. religious reasons for objecting to termination won't ever find it acceptable to change their views.




i.e. I suggested *as an example* that those with religious views would never change their minds.

That's a far cry from suggesting anyone who objects to abortion does so on religious grounds.  Maybe just read the post properly before going off in objection.


----------



## Miss Hale (6 November 2011)

Julia said:


> If you're referring to my post above...




Not at all.  I was referring to the post made by freddy2, this one, 



freddy2 said:


> Don't underestimate the religious nutters ability to force their fairy tale beliefs onto others.




but when I did the quote thingy to agree with malachii I didn't realise the original post wouldn't be there.


----------



## Julia (6 November 2011)

Miss Hale said:


> Not at all.  I was referring to the post made by freddy2, this one,
> 
> but when I did the quote thingy to agree with malachii I didn't realise the original post wouldn't be there.



OK, thanks for responding, Miss Hale.  That's all good.


----------



## sails (6 November 2011)

Julia said:


> Distress to whom, Sails?
> Have you considered the distress to the pregnant woman if she does not want to have a child?  And all the ramifications for about twenty years of her having to take responsibility for a child she may not be able to care for?  She may not have parents of her own who are able to step into the breach and effectively mother the child.
> Who takes responsibility for the child then?




Julia, I have total sympathy for a pregnant woman faced with the dilema you suggest, but I did mean distress to the actual killing of the unborn child especially as the pregnancy progresses.  Some of the reports I have read from people who have worked in abortion clinics don't paint a nice picture.   It this cruelty to the helpless child and especially as the child enters into the second trimester with stronger bones. Maybe medico wallet could comment if he is around.

If abortion is necessary for whatever reason, I would like to see it done much earlier in the pregnancy than waiting for late term abortions when the unborn child is moving and is well formed and would clearly feel fear and pain.  That is really the intent of my original post.




> That's rather an odd analogy.   To imply that having an unwanted child is similar to putting up with a pesky fly seems a bit unreasonable to me.




I guess I am coming at this from the child's point of view rather than the mother's.  If a child is considered of no value until it reaches a certain number of weeks (even though the child is clearly alive and well in the womb), it almost seems that a fly has as much value as the unwanted child - just get rid of it.  Not sure if that explains it well, and it probably wasn't a good analogy if looking at it from the mother's view point instead of through the eyes of the child.



> This is probably a topic about which some of us will never find common ground.
> People who have, e.g. religious reasons for objecting to termination won't ever find it acceptable to change their views.
> 
> And people who strongly believe in a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body will not succumb to anyone else telling them what they may or may not do.
> ...




I think there will always be differing, and sometimes strongly differing, opinions on these issues.  And not all religious people are so hardlined...


----------



## sails (6 November 2011)

If one can stomach it, here are a couple of videos explaining how abortion is done.  I watched a bit, but it is just as sickening to me as animals being skinned alive for their fur.  Unborn babies of over 20 weeks are quite well formed and would feel pain and can often survive outside of the womb.


----------



## Julia (7 November 2011)

Sails, your point about late abortions is absolutely valid, and I agree.

In my vehemence about a woman's right to choose, I'd be assuming if she didn't want the child, she would be seeking a termination as soon as she knew she was pregnant.

And no, of course not all religious people are hard line.  I don't think I said they were.
But some people's religious convictions are without any shades of grey and totally preclude abortion under any circumstances.  That's all I was saying.  I was using it *as an example* of where an attitude is implacable.

Thank you for so clearly explaining how you feel.  I get it absolutely.


----------



## lurker123 (8 November 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Just copying this over from the other thread, the gist of it is "abortion is murder, religions are irrelevant".
> 
> 
> 
> ...




To equate abortion with murder makes you religious. Who we are is a complex interaction between our environment and our genes through time. The logical conclusion is that even a baby who has just been born has not developed a sense of self due to lack of interaction with its environment through time. We all eat animals and we don't call killing animals murder because we don't perceive animals to have the intellectual capacity of humans, and as such animals are not considered alive as we are because their brains do not allow them to reach the stage of true self awareness. In the same vein even though a baby has the potential to reach true self awareness through interaction with its environment through time, due to not having had "time" is in effect not really self aware. Who they can become does not exist yet. You cannot murder someone who does not exist. 

To think that you can murder a baby clearly makes you religious in that you believe that the person who that baby can become already exists. To believe that means you believe in the mythical thing called the "SOUL".

It is not abortionists who think 2+2=5. It is people like you who believe in the soul, even if you aren't religious and are unaware of your own belief of the soul.


----------



## Knobby22 (8 November 2011)

lurker123 said:


> To equate abortion with murder makes you religious. Who we are is a complex interaction between our environment and our genes through time. The logical conclusion is that even a baby who has just been born has not developed a sense of self due to lack of interaction with its environment through time. We all eat animals and we don't call killing animals murder because we don't perceive animals to have the intellectual capacity of humans, and as such animals are not considered alive as we are because their brains do not allow them to reach the stage of true self awareness. In the same vein even though a baby has the potential to reach true self awareness through interaction with its environment through time, due to not having had "time" is in effect not really self aware. Who they can become does not exist yet. You cannot murder someone who does not exist.
> 
> To think that you can murder a baby clearly makes you religious in that you believe that the person who that baby can become already exists. To believe that means you believe in the mythical thing called the "SOUL".
> 
> It is not abortionists who think 2+2=5. It is people like you who believe in the soul, even if you aren't religious and are unaware of your own belief of the soul.




People don't like to kill kittens - is that also to do with a soul? Dogs are not considered alive because they are not as smart as us???  I don't think so.

You have to admit a late term abortion is pretty nasty.Your example with food, beef cattle- remember the protest when we all saw cattle killed in bad ways. There are standards!  Naturally we feel the same with tiny humans. for example a 3 month old born baby is not yet self aware, so we can kill it if we feel like?? It doesn't matter? And if we think it does then we are one of those people that believe in souls? Would you kill a baby with no compunction because it is not self aware yet?

The doctors who perform this late term abortion procedure and they're associated nurses hate it. A hospital in Melbourne was complaining that they were the only in Victoria doing later term abortions and they wanted to spread the load around because the nurses and doctors feel revulsion and psychological effects while doing it.  

My attitude is that if the baby could survive outside the womb, if born premature, then its too late to do it unless there is a very good reason such as rape or genetic problem involved. I don't want my tax payers money being spent on such a nasty task for healthy babies when there are many couples who would love to adopt the child.


----------



## DocK (8 November 2011)

I found voting on this poll difficult due to a lack of options.  I think abortion is one of those issues that not only the general population will disagree about, often vehemently, but individuals can feel unsure or uneasy about.  At least I'll admit to a certain amount of uncertainty.  I am definately pro-choice, but I am a mother.  I'll defend any woman's right to decide what happens to her own body, but having been pregnant and feeling the life inside me - I can't agree with late term abortions except in extreme circumstances.  If I had a daughter I'd support her right to a termination, even if I'd prefer she carry the baby to term.  If one of my sons got a girl pregnant who decided to abort against his wishes - I think I'd be very saddened but respectful of the fact that nobody has the right to force a pregnancy on an unwilling woman.    I am not religious, but do consider the taking of "life" to be murder.  The big question for me is when is an embryo considered to be a "life".  At 6 - 12 weeks there is no chance of life outside the womb and I personally do not regard this as "life", but potential life.  At 24 or 26 weeks many foetuses are considered viable outside the womb and I'd consider a termination at this late stage to be murder, or very near to it.  Where is the tipping point between the two?  I find myself very, very glad that I've never been in a position to have to make the decision on whether to abort or not.  I have friends who have found themselves in this position and I don't think any of them reached their decision (some to abort, some not to) easily.  I do know that most don't regret the decision that they made.  

To me it comes down to a question of rights.  If your personal religious beliefs are that abortion is murder, then by all means don't have one.  Nobody is going to force an abortion on somebody who doesn't want one.  I feel strongly that nobody has the right to enforce their personal beliefs or values on the population at large.  Matters of legality should be separate to matters of personal morality/ethics.  Nobody has the right to take away a woman's right to control over her own body - that's what it comes down to in the end for me.


----------



## lurker123 (8 November 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> People don't like to kill kittens - is that also to do with a soul? Dogs are not considered alive because they are not as smart as us???  I don't think so.
> 
> You have to admit a late term abortion is pretty nasty.Your example with food, beef cattle- remember the protest when we all saw cattle killed in bad ways. There are standards!  Naturally we feel the same with tiny humans. for example a 3 month old born baby is not yet self aware, so we can kill it if we feel like?? It doesn't matter? And if we think it does then we are one of those people that believe in souls? Would you kill a baby with no compunction because it is not self aware yet?
> 
> ...




Your reference to dogs and cats is laughable and shows your failure to use logic. There are plenty of places where they will kill dogs for food expecially if there are no other sources of food available. As a simplification there is no difference between a dog/cat to a cow or chicken. The only difference is that our ancestors found cows/chickens easy to farm, while dogs were predators which makes them hard to farm. Not withstanding the fact that our ancestors learned that they could use dogs to help us farm. 

Your comparison with the cattle killed in bad ways shows your own hypocrisy. If you were to compare the cattle killed in bad ways to abortion then you would compare it to a baby being tortured to death. If you understood your own hypocrisy you would take the view that I don't support killing babies hence I will no longer eat meat and will become a vegetarian. The fact that you don't take this view means that you see humans as being above animals which supports my case entirely. We kill animals and don't call it murder because animals are inferior to humans because they lack the brain capacity to develop true self awareness.

You mention doctors and nurses at a hospital in Melbourne hating to do late term abortions. In my view if the doctors and nurses don't want to do late term abortions then they shouldn't be forced to. 

To answer your question as to whether I would kill a baby, no I wouldn't. Would I kill a cow, I wouldn't kill a cow either. On the otherhand if I was paid well to work at a abattoir or kill a baby then I would. In the interest of full disclosure, if you asked me if I would murder someone provided I was paid well and wouldn't go to gaol such as when joining the army, I would. Doubtless those who are against my view and fail at using logic would use this as a avenue of attack. I am just a immoral piece of **** so anything I say is crap.

Obviously it is much harder to kill a baby than a cow. Unlike sharks, evolution has taken humans down the road where we don't readily kill either our own or other peoples babies. This has been achieved in various ways, from the way babies look, they are extremely cute to possibly the pheromones they give off. Because I am not a scientist who studies this field I am unable to expand further.


----------



## Julia (8 November 2011)

Lurker, much as I acknowledge your right to express your view, reading your post makes me feel quite sick.

Animals are sentient creatures.  They experience pain and fear in the same way human beings do.


----------



## tothemax6 (9 November 2011)

lurker123 said:


> To equate abortion with murder makes you religious. Who we are is a complex interaction between our environment and our genes through time. The logical conclusion is that even a baby who has just been born has not developed a sense of self due to lack of interaction with its environment through time. We all eat animals and we don't call killing animals murder because we don't perceive animals to have the intellectual capacity of humans, and as such animals are not considered alive as we are because their brains do not allow them to reach the stage of true self awareness. In the same vein even though a baby has the potential to reach true self awareness through interaction with its environment through time, due to not having had "time" is in effect not really self aware. Who they can become does not exist yet. You cannot murder someone who does not exist.
> 
> To think that you can murder a baby clearly makes you religious in that you believe that the person who that baby can become already exists. To believe that means you believe in the mythical thing called the "SOUL".
> 
> It is not abortionists who think 2+2=5. It is people like you who believe in the soul, even if you aren't religious and are unaware of your own belief of the soul.



So basically, your position is 'killing a baby, even if it is born, is not immoral, to think otherwise is religious'. Well if that's the definition mate, I am damn religious. And you sir are a schizophrenic.


----------



## Logique (9 November 2011)

We don't live in a perfect cocooned and regulated world. I'm staunchly pro-choice.


----------



## Julia (9 November 2011)

Logique said:


> We don't live in a perfect cocooned and regulated world. I'm staunchly pro-choice.



 Agree.   Most situations in life require compromise.  Often between two unattractive options.


----------

