Abortion debate (1 Viewer)

[Kittycat]

You're quite thick, aren't you? They were both referring to the stereotype, not all who happen to live in the west. This may surprise you, but even though onew may refer to a stereotype, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are of the belief that it actually exists, even though there is always some element of truth in each stereotype. Surely you are aware of argumentative embellishments (or hyperbole), or would that be hoping for too much?

Yes Generator, I am very very thick because I come from the west and I have no brains. Now excuse me, I am going to quit uni & go have lotsa babies & keep myself poor & dirty

 

[Generator]

Yes Generator, I am very very thick because I come from the west and I have no brains. Now excuse me, I am going to quit uni & go have lotsa babies & keep myself poor & dirty

Awesome. Be sure to commit welfare fraud, too.

 

[Kittycat]

Awesome. Be sure to commit welfare fraud, too.

*sign* Oh yea sure, thanks for reminding me but I am not sure if this thick head is able to handle the complexity. Are you, the brainy one, be able to teach me how to do it?

But really, I have heard heaps of stuff said about westies & it get a bit annoying.

 

[Generator]

But in that case it was hardly an attack on the social standing of the western suburbs as a whole. Your concerns are quite valid, but there's little to be gained by denouncing each and every use of the westie stereotype.

 

[Kittycat]

But in that case it was hardly an attack on the social standing of the western suburbs as a whole. Your concerns are quite valid, but there's little to be gained by denouncing each and every use of the westie stereotype.

Well, I am not saying that it doesn't happen 'cuz I have to admit I have seen some cases where the stereotype fits but it gets annoying when I say I am from the west & some people would look down at me & go, 'Oh you are one of them dirty, dumb people who wants to live off the government, and is going to have lots of kids' without knowing me.

You're quite thick, aren't you? They were both referring to the stereotype, not all who happen to live in the west. This may surprise you, but even though onew may refer to a stereotype, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are of the belief that it actually exists, even though there is always some element of truth in each stereotype. Surely you are aware of argumentative embellishments (or hyperbole), or would that be hoping for too much?

& no Generator, I am not really thick. I was simply asking why some people actually believe that westies are scroungier etc No thanks to the media eg the whole Macquarie Fields incidence.

 

[musik_junky]

Erawamai, think about it. You are NOT giving an appropriate analogy. You are saying that a woman should be able to get an abortion for economic reasons. This will result in the death of the foetus. How is this related to a doctor compensating a mother? One will result in the death of the child, the other will result in money to the mother. A more appropriate suggestion would be for the government to give the first mother money to raise her child. This will result in a living foetus and money to the mother...just like the doctor giving compensation. Your example, however, will result in a dead foetus and no compensation to the mother.

any comments?

 

[erawamai]

any comments?

Money is not relevant to before birth and as such should not be a consideration. However it is ok for money to be considered after birth for the cost of raising the child. This is compensation for the child existing. The child which would not have existed if the doctor had not been negligent.

Hence there is a contradiction. You are not allowing the measuring the cost of the child being a relevant factor in abortions. However you are allowing the economic cost of raising the child to be considered as compensation for the economic damage that the birth of the baby caused.

Essentially money should not be a reason for abortion because money should not be an issue when we are talking about life.

But then it is a factor when the court comes to measure the economic harm the mother has suffered as a result of birth caused by the negligence of the doctor. The court goes ahead and measures the cost of life as it is the only way in which the court can compensate the mother for the baby.

People who do not support economic reasons for abortions do not believe that a women should be compensation for a birth that results from the negligence of the doctor. This is because money should not be a factor and life should not be measured in $ terms. That all births are a gift of god.

You are saying that a woman should be able to get an abortion for economic reasons. This will result in the death of the foetus. How is this related to a doctor compensating a mother?

The doctor compensates the mother for the damaged suffered for. Essentially the birth of the baby that was unplanned and unwanted.

-------------------
Essentially your view is a contradiction because you don't want life to measured economically before birth. But after birth it is fine.

 

[katie_tully]

Dear lord. If only I had the energy.

 

[katie_tully]

Now if your definition of an EARLY abortion is before 12 weeks, and a late abortion being after 12 weeks [ when the embryo has developed into a fetus] than a large proportion of abortions occur late. Many people feel that aborting a fetus is wrong as it at that stage develops many human characteristics. If by late abortions you mean after 14 weeks, very few abortions occur then. Abortions have been known to occur well into the second tri-mester however. My neighbourgh was recently asked if she would like an abortion, however she went through with the pregnancy and gave birth to a healthy downe syndrome child.

Dude. I don't care about your neighbour. That was her decision. So what? we should all model ourselves on her?
Read what I said. You cannot legally have an abortion after 14 weeks unless there is something medically unfit with the child. Even then you cannot tell until 24 weeks the severity, thus unless there are medical reasons it is illegal to have an abortion at 24 weeks. After 14 weeks you cannot just walk in and have an abortion. It doesn't happen. It can't. You're basing your shitty argument on a 2 weeks slot from 12 weeks to 14 weeks when the embyro starts to develop into a foetus. Excellent, remind me again why I waste my time on you.

err no, it only said that the easyer suction form of abortion is used then. It actually said the majority of abortions occur up to 14 weeks. Only a minority occur after 14 weeks.
Katie i warn you not to put your own definition of life onto the beleifs of others. My elderly grandmother has difficulty walking and you are suggesting people with these sorts of disabilities are not living human beings. be very careful what you say.

Again, I don't give a stuff about your grandmother either. She has no relevance in this argument. It is beyond my comprehension how you can link my argument to saying your grandmother isn't a human. What the hell? I couldn't even make that link if I pulled it from my creative arse hat. A minority occur after 14 weeks ONLY IF THERE IS A MEDICAL DEFICIENCY. IT'S ILLEGAL OTHERWISE! YOU CANNOT ABORT A HEALTHY FOETUS AFTER 14 WEEKS! Jesus christ, which part of this do you not understand? I think the mother or parents have every right to decide to abort late term if their child is going to have a disability.

ecconomic factors are relevant but they should not have as much influence as they do today. It is a joke to suggest that people living in australia would not have the ecconomic ability to support a child. The idea of compensating for pregnancy is not to do with the child but because the woman will have difficulty working whilst pregnant and should be compensated for being out of work to carry a child she doesnt want. the other issue is to try and disscourage backyard abortions that went on before abortions were legal.

I forgot. Everybody in Australia is wealthy and can afford to have children at any time. How silly of us to over look this.
It's not exactly compensation. The idea behind giving monetry incentive was so that women had children to boost our population. We have an aging population which isn't being replaced at a fast enough rate, but that's an entirely different topic.

Stop being so self righteous. I laugh when I read your posts. Not because you're a comedian, but because you are so convinced you are right, and are morally holier than thou.

 

[Captain pi]

Under what section of what Act does it state that it is a crime to procure the abortion of a foetus that is over 14 weeks?

 

[Serius]

Dude. I don't care about your neighbour. That was her decision. So what? we should all model ourselves on her?
Read what I said. You cannot legally have an abortion after 14 weeks unless there is something medically unfit with the child. Even then you cannot tell until 24 weeks the severity, thus unless there are medical reasons it is illegal to have an abortion at 24 weeks. After 14 weeks you cannot just walk in and have an abortion. It doesn't happen. It can't. You're basing your shitty argument on a 2 weeks slot from 12 weeks to 14 weeks when the embyro starts to develop into a foetus. Excellent, remind me again why I waste my time on you.



Again, I don't give a stuff about your grandmother either. She has no relevance in this argument. It is beyond my comprehension how you can link my argument to saying your grandmother isn't a human. What the hell? I couldn't even make that link if I pulled it from my creative arse hat. A minority occur after 14 weeks ONLY IF THERE IS A MEDICAL DEFICIENCY. IT'S ILLEGAL OTHERWISE! YOU CANNOT ABORT A HEALTHY FOETUS AFTER 14 WEEKS! Jesus christ, which part of this do you not understand? I think the mother or parents have every right to decide to abort late term if their child is going to have a disability.



I forgot. Everybody in Australia is wealthy and can afford to have children at any time. How silly of us to over look this.
It's not exactly compensation. The idea behind giving monetry incentive was so that women had children to boost our population. We have an aging population which isn't being replaced at a fast enough rate, but that's an entirely different topic.

Stop being so self righteous. I laugh when I read your posts. Not because you're a comedian, but because you are so convinced you are right, and are morally holier than thou.

you are the second thickest, most stuborn person i have ever come into contact with. Read back what you have previously posted you foolish woman.

If you had bothered not being such a fucking moron, you would have read that statistically more abortions happen between 8-12 weeks, and rarely do they go up until 14 weeks.
Oh lardy dar, a 2 week window. Geez, we're killing a human! That must mean the embryo managed to develop motor neurone skills, breathing, walking, thinking, living without reliance on its mother....ALL IN TWO WEEKS! Holy crap, I dub thee super embryo.

You are defining a human as something that can breath, walk and think independantly. I warned you to be careful what you say and yet you fail to either realise your mistake or see what is wrong with your post! You have made a clearly descriminatory definition of life! Wholy fuck you self obsorbed bitch did you not realise that one can live without walking by themselves? Do you realise some people need assitance breathing? How about i dub thee disability-hater - slayer of all those who cannot walk or breathe on their own!
i can see it now! Killing someone who is disabled is not murder, it is merely abortion!


Perhaps you should look up the definition of life yourself and see what it is , because you are way off the mark.
i felt it apropriate to put in an example so you atleast have the chance of connecting your mind back with reality. Fuck you are almost as thick as a brain dead hobo in the gutter! YES I REALISED THAT A MINORITY OF MEDICAL-ONLY ABORTIONS OCCUR AFTER 14 WEEKS! i would have thought my previous post made it quite clear. You are obviously diluded in your own little world, Yeah guess what dumbass? you made a mistake and i picked up on it. You then tried to dumb down the fact that abortions occur when the baby is a fetus and NOT ONLY JUST FOR MEDICAL REASONS.

WHOLLY LIVING SHIT YOU ARE ONE MENTALLY ILL, DESCRIMINATING, OBTUSE FOOL

seek help before you harm yourself- or more importantly -others

 

[james_chappo]

Abortion = no child support

 

[Generator]

Serius... I'm finding it hard to express my outrage and utter disbelief at the current time. Not only are you rationalising the outright refusal of a woman to control her reproductive functions, but you also twisting katie's argument to a considerable degree, so much so that it no longer resembles the point that katie was trying to make (a point that I thought was quite clear).

Frustrating (and I'm sure that Katie will be more than venting her spleen when she responds to that post).

 

[james_chappo]

Serius - maybe you'd understand if you had a vagina - seeing as seem to to have little grasp on the concept of empathy!

 

[Captain pi]

A method to end violent, unreasonable argument

Guys, learn to argue in syllogisms.

For instance:
Major Premise I
Arguing in syllogisms makes one's argument clear;
Major Premise II
Making one's argument clear is worthwhile;
Conclusion
Therefore, arguing in syllogisms is worthwhile.

Of course, merely arguing in syllogisms doesn't make your point right. In the above example, you may object to my major premise; but at least everyone (including you) can see the argument.

Furthermore,
Major Premise Ia
Arguing in syllogisms focuses the argument on the issue;
Major Premise Ib
Focusing on the issue avoids attacks against people;
Major Premise II
Avoiding attacks against people and focusing the argument on the issue are conducive to reasonable discussion;
Major Premise III
Reasonable discussion is the object of this forum;
Conclusion
Therefore, we should argue in syllogisms.

Don't worry if you are making improper generalizations at first (for instance, "all life is sacred"); just put them down, and we can have a discussion about them (other people may offer satisfactory refinements).

It may often seem tempting to use enthymemes (syllogisms with hidden premises), as the following:

All politicians are liars;
Therefore, Kim Beazley is a liar.

(which is missing the minor premise "Kim Beazley is a politician")

However, I think, for now, giving the full syllogism would be best.

So, from now on: syllogisms and only syllogisms!

 

[james_chappo]

Go home pie boy

 

[ariande]

Although I'm entering this debate in the middle of it, I am still going to give my opinion, bearing in mind that I have not the time, nor the patience to read through the entire thread. So I apologise in advance if my thoughts have already been voiced.

For myself, I don't believe in abortion. That is a personal choice that I have made in regards to my own body and my views on life and children. Regardless of the circumstances, I could not follow through with an abortion operation as I would view it as murdering a child that I would potentially and probably love. I do understand however, that in many cases it is necessary for women to have abortions, and that they should be allowed that freedom of choice over their own bodies.

The only thing that I would actively oppose is women who use abortion as a form of contraception, as I believe this to be morally and ethically wrong. I think that if the woman has not the means nor the ability to raise a child, then they should take active steps to prevent themselves falling pregnant. In the case where rape or any other form of forcing/pressure is involved, then I understand completely.

Feel free to give me your thoughts in return.

 

[erawamai]

I think that if the woman has not the means nor the ability to raise a child, then they should take active steps to prevent themselves falling pregnant.

People do take active steps and sometimes they fail.

The only thing that I would actively oppose is women who use abortion as a form of contraception, as I believe this to be morally and ethically wrong.

Due to the serious physical nature of most abortions I doubt that many women use it as a contraceptive.

In the case where rape or any other form of forcing/pressure is involved, then I understand completely.

Why? Why are you going to murder an innocent potential child that the person could 'potentially and probably love' in your words? What does the consent of the mother have to do with it? You are placing the mother above the innocent unborn child.

It seems like a contradiction to suggest that a women's consent to having a child is relevant when has been sexually assaulted but irrelevant when she does not have the means to support the child or the steps that she has taken to prevent pregancy have failed.

The women should have complete choice, she should not be made to carry a child that she does not want.

 

[ariande]

People do take active steps and sometimes they fail.



Why? Why are you going to murder an innocent potential child that the person could 'potentially and probably love' in your words? What does the consent of the mother have to do with it? You are placing the mother above the innocent unborn child.

It seems like a contradiction to suggest that a women's consent to having a child is relevant when has been sexually assaulted but irrelevant when she does not have the means to support the child or the steps that she has taken to prevent pregancy have failed.

The women should have complete choice, she should not be made to carry a child that she does not want.

I know that it fails at times. What I mean, is people who do not take precautions at all and rely on abortions. And there are people out there.

.... Read what I said next time. I said that *I* could not murder a child that I would potentially and probably love. However, I do understand that my view is not everyone's. Other people have the right to their own choice when it comes to their bodies. I just personally do not agree with it, in terms of myself.

I am saying that I understand the personal choice that women go through to decide to have an abortion. I did not say that I only supported other women's rights to abortion if they had been sexually assulted. Don't twist my words.

 

[erawamai]

I know that it fails at times. What I mean, is people who do not take precautions at all and rely on abortions. And there are people out there.

A very small number. The nature of the abortion procedure is not a nice experience. I doubt women would use it as a contraceptive unless of course you listen to old men who make suggest the procedure is easy and painless. It's not as easy or painless as taking a panadol.

I am saying that I understand the personal choice that women go through to decide to have an abortion. I did not say that I only supported other women's rights to abortion if they had been sexually assulted. Don't twist my words.

Just making some inferences for you. Or at least to show you the implications of your words. I was aware that you said 'I' however I was challenging you on your view that women who are raped should be allowed to abort. Which seems to be in contradiction with your personal views whereby you consider the consent or views of the women when it comes to being raped but not when it comes to the women not having the means or not being socially and mentally ready to have a child.