Abortion debate (1 Viewer)

[katie_tully]

Don't breathe.

 

[ur_inner_child]

t he option is dont have sex.

id like to see a marriage last without sex.

 

[HotShot]

id like to see a marriage last without sex.

DONT MARRY, BE A LONER

 

[HotShot]

Illogical Fundamentalist Troll, represent.

actually i was saying that in response to Schroedinger's idiotic thread. my main point is that abortion should be like stepping on some ants. THe process to get an should be intense, so that nonoe regrets it.

 

[katie_tully]

But stepping on ants is easy, abortion is not. The whole point of abortion is not so it's an easy, breezy process. A walk in walk out event. Contrary to the belief of pro lifers, we don't believe abortion should be taken light hearted. We do however believe it should be accessible.

 

[HotShot]

And i was saying that in regards to the majority of posts you've made in the past hour.

well i am hungry.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

which, i'd say is a sign that contraception needs to be discussed more, and they should be told of the consequences of it....so that girls aren't having sex thinking that they can't get pregnant, or getting pregnant because they're using contraceptives wrong..

being pro-choice does not make u pro-easy-sex-even-tho-it-feel-nice... see thats wat condoms are for..

abortion is the end zone.. noone who is pro-choice thinks its a good idea to have one every day nor is it fun.. and u think we are heartless cos we think a person should have that choice over their body

having sex can be a choice.. so if u fuck up.. what?
we should teach them a lesson? that would be fucked up ..

see the solution to ure problem is more education.. pregnancy = not a good thing if you are not ready for it.. pro-lifers should educate ppl instead of dumbing ppl with their non-progressive views..

the current govt is not doing anything about it.. and very few schools are doing an adequate job..

my point is just, the arguement of abortion being ok because "oh look at this poor girl, she's pregant and doesn't know what to do, pity her" just makes me think that she should've been realising this problem in the first place and considered the possiblity when she was deciding to have sex. and it is a choice.

so punish her? right im sure that we should apply that across the board..

i mean, i tend to eat unhealthily...atm not really overweight because of it, but if it happened and then i said "oh, i'm really fat and i don't know what to do" people would say i was an idiot and should've realised that eating poorly can well lead to weight gain, and that i should've been responsible on the matter.

curiously are u against gastric banding and surgical methods of weight lost? cos it doesnt teach the morbidly obese a lesson?

u assume ppl are sensible.. and dun fuck up.. the reality of it.. is abortion and adoption are both traumatic ...(look at the New England Journal of Medicine lots of evidence there.. i cbf cos i know it) .. dun think one is the 'easy' alternative..

i hope one day pro-lifers make a mistake.. and its fixable.. but i hope that option is closed to them.. to 'teach' them a lesson that would be good irony

 

[davin]

i think it should be legal...i'm just saying that i disagree with this attitude that abortion isn't often a fix to irresponsible behavior.

 

[Cykologi_gal]

As a Buddhist, I'm against it - because Buddhism teaches that life is rotational and we're all here because it is pre-destined and we must accept our lives, so we can cleanse ourselves, as humans, and go to Heaven - We had many past lives and if we deny an entry to life, we are condemned and so is the unborn child - to a worse fate...But on the other hand, considering all these other poeple who aren't Buddhist, abortion should be legal - but with tough conditions applied: Rape & deformed unborn children seem to be the only moral reasons to me. Otherwise, if married couples are stupid and irresponsible enough to have sex without considering the consequences i.e. STIs and pregnancy, should be denied abortion in most cases - I believe that all humans, young or old, born or unborn, have the same rights to life - unless you know they won't be loved in the family, or the family is too poor, or that the mother is ill etc. For unmarried couples, I think issue is heaviest here - it's all down to repsonsibility once more...Though I agree to the fact that males esp. the politicians, should be best left out of the debate - Most don't understand the agony of pregnancy and childbirth and of course, it is women's business - The females are always left with it all while the males can leave anytime.

 

[Phanatical]

It takes two to tango, and I think it's disgusting that women can think that men have absolutely nothing at stake in the abortion debate.

 

[ogmzergrush]

It takes two to tango, and I think it's disgusting that women can think that men have absolutely nothing at stake in the abortion debate.

Don't tango, be safe!@12311

That said, I agree. Cykologi_gal, if we're on to putting people in their place, since when have you as a female had the right to an opinion anyway? I think you'll find that male, 60 year old, oft-bald dudes are far more qualified than anyone else on the planet to make decisions about abortion, and as such your opinion on this matter is irrelevant.

(Overused laundry/baking joke goes here)

 

[wheredanton]

It takes two to tango, and I think it's disgusting that women can think that men have absolutely nothing at stake in the abortion debate.

Men do have a role in abortion however the onus of the preganancy on significantly more so on the mother. She can even give birth without you.

In any case the great majority of young men who get their partners pregnant outside of some kind of stable financial and ecomotion situation will encourage their partner to abortion. And please stop with this *people shouldn't have sex* Bullshit. Come on what kind of tangent universe do you exist in? People have sex and will always have sex regardless of the risks because having sex is natural. I know the know concept of sex to you makes you shudder but for everyone else it is a vital part of our emotional and social development that should not be denied to any human.

 

[volition]

I reckon it should just be left up to women. They're the ones that have to deal with the consequences, so they should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies.

The choice affects everyone, because everyone could have potentially been aborted, male OR female. I feel that the choice should be made by the woman and her 'partner in crime'.

 

[erawamai]

I feel that the choice should be made by the woman and her 'partner in crime'.

How exactly is this decision weighted? Should the women have stronger say because she has to carry the baby?

In any case women because containers of life totally subservient to the foetus all their life unless they can control their reproduction. And yes phanatical I know what your thinking. Women should just not have sex. Sex is evil and disgiusting if had for the purpose of pleasure. Those who have sex for pleasure are murderers etc etc. Interestingly in the real world women have sex for pleasure and not totally for the purpose of procreation.

If a women cannot control her reproduction she cannot control her life. The man in her life then controls her by deciding when to have sex with her (amazingly a males' decision to have sex is not purely motivated by procreation) and therefore how often she falls pregnant. Allowing women the choice gives women greater control over their reproduction and their lives. Allowing women access to family planning is a good thing not a bad thing.

I don't know any girl that would not love to have a family at some stage in life. The resounding response is that this family would be better off to happen later in life when they have a stable and loving partner. Where the relationship is emotionally and financially stable.

 

[GemmaHavok]

Generally I'm pro-abortion, my only concern it that the easier it becomes to have an abortion ie with the introduction of RU486, women will just become less responsible when it comes to preventing pregnancy in the first place. Currently the thought of an abortion brings to mind a physically and mentally painful procedure. With the introduction of this abortion pill an abortion is as easy as taking a panadol.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Generally I'm pro-abortion, my only concern it that the easier it becomes to have an abortion ie with the introduction of RU486, women will just become less responsible when it comes to preventing pregnancy in the first place. Currently the thought of an abortion brings to mind a physically and mentally painful procedure. With the introduction of this abortion pill an abortion is as easy as taking a panadol.

Despite being somewhat less invasive, a bit of reading seems to indicate that this is still significantly less enjoyable than *not* having an abortion, so I don't really think many people will be jumping at the opportunity to get pregnant to abort with RU486, as convenient as the pill popping may be. I'd imagine mentally the process is still quite trying, as a lot of the factors which make this a big decision still exist regardless of the method of abortion (Though agreed, to varying extents).

 

[frog12986]

Generally speaking, I have taken a pro-choice approach to the issue, merely because I don't believe that we should enforce our religous convictions upon others. At the end of the day, choice is what differentiates our society from many others.

However despite this view, Tony Abbott made a very sound and valid point yesterday when discussing the RU486 bill. He made reference to the fact that at law, when a pregnant woman is murdered, the actions of the perpetrator have in fact been interpreted to have taken two lives. Now if we are to continue to interpret the law in this manner, then doesn't it hold true that we should also recognise that a life is equally being taken away through the abortion process. In my opinion there is a contradiction of law here in that we sanction a murderer for removing two lives, yet because it is under the guise of an abortion, the life of the unborn child suddenly becomes irrelevant.

Moreover, considering that under S.82 and S.83 of the NSW Crimes Act 1900 it is conveyed to be illegal for an individual woman to procure and administer drugs with the intent to miscarriage or abort pregnancy, then does this not contradict the whole point of legalising the RU486 drug...it just appears that our definition of life sways according to the circumstances, when inevitably life should not be such a subjective concept..

 

[ogmzergrush]

However despite this view, Tony Abbott made a very sound and valid point yesterday when discussing the RU486 bill. He made reference to the fact that at law, when a pregnant woman is murdered, the actions of the perpetrator have in fact been interpreted to have taken two lives. Now if we are to continue to interpret the law in this manner, then doesn't it hold true that we should also recognise that a life is equally being taken away through the abortion process. In my opinion there is a contradiction of law here in that we sanction a murderer for removing two lives, yet because it is under the guise of an abortion, the life of the unborn child suddenly becomes irrelevant.

Moreover, considering that under S.82 and S.83 of the NSW Crimes Act 1900 it is conveyed to be illegal for an individual woman to procure and administer drugs with the intent to miscarriage or abort pregnancy, then does this not contradict the whole point of legalising the RU486 drug...it just appears that our definition of life sways according to the circumstances, when inevitably life should not be such a subjective concept..

Perhaps it's the fact that in cases of abortion, the baby is deemed to be something that's not going to work out (hence the abortion), whereas in cases where an unborn is killed as a result of the mother's death, it's a life that (it is expected) would have been all good?

Edit: Point removed because I misread an important sentence

 

[erawamai]

However despite this view, Tony Abbott made a very sound and valid point yesterday when discussing the RU486 bill. He made reference to the fact that at law, when a pregnant woman is murdered, the actions of the perpetrator have in fact been interpreted to have taken two lives. Now if we are to continue to interpret the law in this manner, then doesn't it hold true that we should also recognise that a life is equally being taken away through the abortion process. In my opinion there is a contradiction of law here in that we sanction a murderer for removing two lives, yet because it is under the guise of an abortion, the life of the unborn child suddenly becomes irrelevant.

I think he's drawing a long bow there or being misleading. I did criminal law two years ago and I can't remember any cases that expressly state that two lives were taken when a pregnant mother was killed. I'm pretty sure no judge would have gone that far. I think (im guessing) they would have recognised that a potential life was destroyed when the mother was murdered and that this should be considered when it comes to sentencing, or something along those lines. A judgement that suggests that two lives were being murdered would have been jumped on by tye pro life lobby as legal recongition that the foetus should be given the same rights as a life in being and that abortion is murder.

Moreover, considering that under S.82 and S.83 of the NSW Crimes Act 1900 it is conveyed to be illegal for an individual woman to procure and administer drugs with the intent to miscarriage or abort pregnancy, then does this not contradict the whole point of legalising the RU486 drug...it just appears that our definition of life sways according to the circumstances, when inevitably life should not be such a subjective concept..

Those sections depend on the interpretations given to them in cases in the early 70s.

The current law in relation to abortion in NSW is contained within statute and common law. Section 82 of the Crimes Act NSW makes it an offence for a woman to unlawfully administer herself with a drug or use any instrument or other means with intent to procure a miscarriage. This is punishable by 10 years gaol. Section 83 makes it an offence for any other person to unlawfully administer a drug or cause a pregnant woman to take a drug or use any instrument with the intent to procure a miscarriage. This is punishable by 5 years gaol. In 1971 District Court Judge Levine in the case of Wald found that there was no wrongdoing if the miscarriage was procured on the basis that there was an honest and reasonable belief that the termination of the pregnancy was needed in order to protect the pregnant women from serious danger to her mental or physical health. This danger presented by the procedure must not be out of proportion to the danger which is intended to be averted. In the case of CES v Superclinics President Kirby (as he was then) expanded the scope of the danger to the pregnant women’s health to after the birth of the child as well as allowing the consideration of economic and social circumstances affecting the health of the pregnant woman.

 

[katie_tully]

<3 Costello.
Finally a politician who is making some sense of the bill. Despite the fact that he didn't pick the abortion, he believes that being able to have a choice is instrumental and should be a basic right for all women. It also shows that abortion does not merely affect the woman, and sometimes a GUY will need to make a the decision.
I am hoping that people are realising that abortion is not about taking the easy way out. Damn feotus huggers.