RU486 - so called "abortion pill"

[Julia]

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.

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]

Hi Julia



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).



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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

Hi Julia

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

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 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.

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]

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]

Hi again prospector

re your comment:



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

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]

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]

Hi Julia



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.





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

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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