Abortion v non Abortion

 
  lsrailfan Minister for Railways

Location: Somewhere you're not
O.k, since the last 2 pages of my Federal Election thread was taken over by this topic, here is a thread for Abortion v non Abortion, here is where the 2 sides of this debate can have their say in peace away from other topics.

(Edit) not to sure bout the peace bit Wink

Sponsored advertisement

  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Going to bring across the main posts.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

@Sonofagunzel you haven't got it and you never will. Who said that he did not have the right to free speech?  I find ironic that one would deny a womans right to her own body whilst talking about free speech. I said it was a stunt and try pressing him for real policies.

As for Abortion. A foetus is not a independent life form. It depends on the mother. Women have abortions for many reasons however that decision should be hers and hers only. What you or I think should be of no consequence.

Try arguing on something I have actually said.You might get someone actually willing to engage with you.

Mannie
Why does the left consider it a sacrament for women to have a right to sacrifice their unborn children for any reason for the full term of gestation of that child?  (Approx. 50% of late term abortions in Vic are done for psycho-social reasons - i.e. the baby was perfectly healthy and in most cases would survive if born)

Why do many in the left deem that those who protest peacefully against a regime that forces women to kill their unborn children are deserving of criminal charges by the NSW police?

Ironic.

- Carnot
Re Abortion

The debate on whether and when women can abort is simple. Unless you own a uterus, its neither your decision nor is your opnion or view required and then only unless you are asked. First Nations Support Groups would call it "self-determination".

- RTT_Rules

Re Slavery

The debate on whether and when slave masters can dispose of their slaves is simple.  Unless you own a slave, it's neither your decision nor is your opinion or view required and then only unless you are asked.  Confederate land-holders would call it "self-determination".
Carnot
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

The debate on whether and when women can abort is simple. Unless you own a uterus, its neither your decision nor is your opnion or view required and then only unless you are asked.

- RTT_Rules
Why?

-  Sonofagunzel
It’s a clear concise and self explanatory statement to me.
michaelgm
Suppose I have a disabled and dependent wife who has no other relatives or friends.  No one ever sees her and she can't communicate.  Let's also suppose that if I stopped looking after her, there's no one that can take over for a few months, including the government.  Let's make it an even closer analogy and say that I created that situation.

Now suppose that I wanted a law that allowed me to bring some bloke in to beat the crap out of her in the privacy of my own home.  I'd make sure that no one would hear or see anything.

You don't own my home or my body or my efforts.  She's not complaining.  You've never met her.  

What gives you the right to tell me that I can't do it?
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

Don't really see the point of the topic.

Every state/territory has legalised it and there is no appetite to re-criminalise it in any of them, and it is not a matter where the federal parliament is constitutionally empowered to intervene in the extremely unlikely scenario that a majority in both houses would vote in favour.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

@Sonofagunzel because if you cannot see the difference in terminating a foetus to hiring someone to batter someone to death and if you cannot see that the analogy you put out is dark then I cannot help you.

- Mannie
There is one huge difference. The person you batter to death is an independently living creature. A foetus is not. In basic terms, the foetus is a parasite. It lives off its host without contributing to her wellbeing in any way (i.e. it is not a symbiotic relationship).

I am always amazed at men who want to tell the host that she must continue to harbour a parasite, regardless of its effect on her. Gentlemen; mind your own business.
Valvegear
No, the person in my analogy is dependent on me, is disabled and unable to communicate.  She will die if I don't support her. She doesn't contribute to me in any way. By the way, I'm only proposing that she be beaten, not killed.

So try again.  What gives you the right to tell me not to hire someone to beat her up?  

Does it have something to do with the fact that both you and I have a penis? I'm not saying that makes sense, but you seem to think that's somehow important.

For the moment, I will ignore your inability to distinguish between a baby/foetus and a parasite.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

No, the person in my analogy is dependent on me, is disabled and unable to communicate.  They die if I don't support them.  They don't contribute to me in any way.
A person? No.
Valvegear
Please clarify.

Try again.  What right do you have to tell me not to hire someone to beat her up?  Is it because we both have a penis?
I have never claimed any such right. From whence you dredged that comment up, I have no idea. It certainly has no obvious relevance.
Valvegear
You think I'm free to hire someone to beat her up?  Wow.

For the moment, I will ignore your inability to distinguish between a baby/foetus and a parasite.
By biological definition, there is no difference. An organism living off another contributes to the other's wellbeing ( symbiosis),  or it doesn't (parasitism). I'm sorry if you are emotionally unable to accept this, but biology isn't going to change its definitions to suit your sensibilities.
Calm down and think logically.
Valvegear
OK, so the woman in my analogy is a parasite, then?  Can I hire someone to beat her up?
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Re Abortion

The debate on whether and when women can abort is simple. Unless you own a uterus, its neither your decision nor is your opnion or view required and then only unless you are asked. First Nations Support Groups would call it "self-determination".
Re Slavery

The debate on whether and when slave masters can dispose of their slaves is simple.  Unless you own a slave, it's neither your decision nor is your opinion or view required and then only unless you are asked.  Confederate land-holders would call it "self-determination".
Haha, nice twist.

The slave is a indpendent human capable of living its own life and was stolen.

A fetus is not.
RTT_Rules
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Suppose I have a disabled and dependent wife who has no other relatives or friends.  No one ever sees her and she can't communicate.  Let's also suppose that if I stopped looking after her, there's no one that can take over for a few months, including the government.  Let's make it an even closer analogy and say that I created that situation.

Now suppose that I wanted a law that allowed me to bring some bloke in to beat the crap out of her in the privacy of my own home.  I'd make sure that no one would hear or see anything.

You don't own my home or my body or my efforts.  She's not complaining.  You've never met her.  

What gives you the right to tell me that I can't do it?
Because if required she can be removed from your home tomorrow and go into govt support.

What you are implying is a uterus is not owned by the human its inside, but rather by the state.
RTT_Rules
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

@Sonofagunzel That I will. You are one dark hombre to come up with that analogy. But you keep on trying to convince yourself you have a valid reason to outlaw Abortion.  You know you've got nothing.

it is your right to oppose abortio . You have zero right to tell a woman what to do with her body. None of your business.


Mannie
Why was my analogy “dark”, exactly?

Would it be “none of your business” if I wanted to be allowed to behave in the way I described in that analogy?

You don’t have to respond.

- Sonofagunzel  
The point is very simple.

Yours and Carnot's analogy's compared a pregnant woman to living humans and by extension you are impling that a woman does not own or control what happens to her uterus.

Your argument is that a woman has no control over whether the festus gets the right to survive and whats worse, men should have the right to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body and a situation that may not even be her doing by choice but regardless what ever the outcome affects her the most in every possible way.

The issue is that while you are trying to say the state has control over the uterus, unfortunately the state has a very imperfect system to looking after that fetus if allowed to be born. ie, will the same state cover the full cost of child birth and loss of income, the cost of raising the child should the father not do so? Or what happens to the unwanted child?

If the state has control of the uterus, should the state then provide free birth control, or is birth control simply another form of abortion? Now that the state owns the uterus, should the state also then provide all costs to maintaining said uterus including menstration control and any health issues that arise? Hell up until recently, women paid 10% GST on most of the costs to support the welfare and other systems that men benefit from.

Child birth has the greatest negative impact to womens career, career progression, job options, job security, standard of living and loss of superannuation.

What about the culture and social impacts of being pregnant when not fitting in with a social norm, ie marriage (which still affects many sectors of our community). Again most of the negatively is male driven and even consequences such as being kicked out of the home or even killed is usually done by males.

When all these systems are perfect then I would agree, things should change, but while they are not, unless you own a uterus then not your concern. The whole abortion issue of when its allowed etc is highly controversal but also very personal to only 50% of the population and as such I think ONLY these people who are entitled to an input into the laws are women. Persoanlly I feel any laws passed should only be allowed to be passed by female members of the house.  How this is done, no idea.
RTT_Rules
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

No, the person in my analogy is dependent on me, is disabled and unable to communicate.  She will die if I don't support her. She doesn't contribute to me in any way. By the way, I'm only proposing that she be beaten, not killed.

So try again.  What gives you the right to tell me not to hire someone to beat her up?  

Does it have something to do with the fact that both you and I have a penis? I'm not saying that makes sense, but you seem to think that's somehow important.

For the moment, I will ignore your inability to distinguish between a baby/foetus and a parasite.

- Sonofagunzel  
That person can be transferred to anothers care today and have no further impact on you, your body, your career, your life.

A human fetus is a parasite. I've heard that from a Dr say that the fetus will try to survive at the risk to the mothers health. Its why pregancy and childbirth was such a high cause of death in pre modern times.
RTT_Rules
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

I notice you had to ignore part of the hypothetical to answer my argument.

If there was no government or charity that could look after her - in other words if I didn’t look after her she would die - can I hire someone to beat her up?

If not, what gives you the right to tell me I can’t?

_______________________________________

Also, your argument seems to imply that there should be no limits on abortion at all.  If there is any burden on the mother, and there always is, then the mother has the right to abort.

Do you support abortion up to the point of birth?  That is the explicit position of many Democrats in the US, and many more - including Biden - are pointedly refusing to clarify their position on this.

Further, the state imposes all sorts of obligations on all of us for the natural consequences of our actions. That includes, for example, our legal obligation to look after our children.  

Also, don’t assume I’m arguing that abortion should be completely illegal.

What I’m mainly arguing against is the view that the foetus has no rights at all.

I’m also arguing against the view that no one other than the woman who wants to kill that foetus has a right to even express an opinion on what the law should be on this topic.

Lefties always claim to be protecting the oppressed and voiceless. Is there anyone  more oppressed and voiceless than an unwanted unborn child?
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

I notice you had to ignore part of the hypothetical to answer my argument.

If there was no government or charity that could look after her - in other words if I didn’t look after her she would die - can I hire someone to beat her up?

If not, what gives you the right to tell me I can’t?

- Sonofagunzel
Didn't, despite its irrelevence to the actual argument. Also continuing a discussion that involves you hypotheically beating your wife is not a path I wish to follow.

In Australia there are systems in place.

In places like India (where I am now) there are none.
RTT_Rules
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Also, your argument seems to imply that there should be no limits on abortion at all.  If there is any burden on the mother, and there always is, then the mother has the right to abort.

Do you support abortion up to the point of birth?  That is the explicit position of many Democrats in the US, and many more - including Biden - are pointedly refusing to clarify their position on this.

Further, the state imposes all sorts of obligations on all of us for the natural consequences of our actions. That includes, for example, our legal obligation to look after our children.  

Also, don’t assume I’m arguing that abortion should be completely illegal.

What I’m mainly arguing against is the view that the foetus has no rights at all.

I’m also arguing against the view that no one other than the woman who wants to kill that foetus has a right to even express an opinion on what the law should be on this topic.

Lefties always claim to be protecting the oppressed and voiceless. Is there anyone  more oppressed and voiceless than an unwanted unborn child?
Did I say there are no limits, if so where? I said the decision and laws for abortion belong with the pink half of the population for what I thought would be plainly obvious reasons.

The problem with the law is its black and white and there are always mitigating circumstances on each side of the line drawn.

If you choose to continue with the pregnancy to birth then you have a legal obligation for that human until it passes 18 or you legally surrender it, whats your point?

The Australian and USA govts have the same trait, they are something 75% male, worse they are generally older males and the actual senior members are mostly male. This portion of the leadership is therefore less connected with the actual needs and impacts. Hence what many including me are saying is that the abortion laws should be left with the females in govt.

This is nothing about Leftie vs Rightie, this is about the right for women to have control over their own bodies and not be subject to rules made by generally older males.

Think about it this way. Your GF / wife has unwanted pregnancy. Should you the father have a controlling vote on whether it proceeds to full term?


Personal opnion is that there is a place for abortion and a place it shouldn't be allowed. Obviously factors such as the health of the mother, health of the fetus, stage of pregancy, prospects for the child upon birth etc all way in. Trying to draft laws around this is nearly impossibe to cover every possible combination. In general in Aus as soon as the mothers life is deemed at risk, there are no limits to when an abortion can take place. This by definition implies the fetus does not have the same legal status of a adult. As for non health related abortion, then no they shouldn't be able to just walk off the street and get one at a moments notice, there should be a consul period of 48 - 72h. But again what ever the laws put in place are and ulimately when it comes to the final decision then it should be done by the female portion of the population.

The alt is we revert back to the days of backyard abortions. My mum (grew up in Moree / Inverell) knows of a few cases of coat hanger abortions and the consequences there of.
RTT_Rules
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

I notice you had to ignore part of the hypothetical to answer my argument.

If there was no government or charity that could look after her - in other words if I didn’t look after her she would die - can I hire someone to beat her up?

If not, what gives you the right to tell me I can’t?

- Sonofagunzel
Didn't, despite its irrelevence to the actual argument.

...

In Australia there are systems in place.

In places like India (where I am now) there are none.
RTT_Rules

The hypothetical stipulated that she is dependent on me and will die if I stop looking after her.  You instead decided to assume that there are "systems in place".  What if there weren't?  

Are you saying that having (or not having) "systems in place" makes no difference to whether:
  • I can hire someone to beat her up?
  • You have a right to have a view or vote about the laws on that point?

Hint: It shouldn't make a difference.

Also continuing a discussion that involves you hypotheically beating your wife is not a path I wish to follow.
RTT_Rules
Fair enough then. Instead of my wife, she’s my daughter.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Also, your argument seems to imply that there should be no limits on abortion at all.  If there is any burden on the mother, and there always is, then the mother has the right to abort.

Do you support abortion up to the point of birth?  That is the explicit position of many Democrats in the US, and many more - including Biden - are pointedly refusing to clarify their position on this.

Further, the state imposes all sorts of obligations on all of us for the natural consequences of our actions. That includes, for example, our legal obligation to look after our children.  

Also, don’t assume I’m arguing that abortion should be completely illegal.

What I’m mainly arguing against is the view that the foetus has no rights at all.

I’m also arguing against the view that no one other than the woman who wants to kill that foetus has a right to even express an opinion on what the law should be on this topic.

Lefties always claim to be protecting the oppressed and voiceless. Is there anyone  more oppressed and voiceless than an unwanted unborn child?
Did I say there are no limits, if so where?
RTT_Rules
Did you notice that I asked, rather than jumped down your throat based on an assumed opinion.  Maybe (in other contexts) you might give that approach a go.

The problem with the law is its black and white and there are always mitigating circumstances on each side of the line drawn.
RTT_Rules
Exactly, it's not simple at all.  You allow it freely, you get injustices.  You prohibit it completely, you get injustices. But the law deals with these sorts of complications all the time - that's why laws and court judgements are so damn long.

If you choose to continue with the pregnancy to birth then you have a legal obligation for that human until it passes 18 or you legally surrender it, whats your point?
RTT_Rules
My point is, you can't kill them.

The Australian and USA govts have the same trait, they are something 75% male, worse they are generally older males and the actual senior members are mostly male. This portion of the leadership is therefore less connected with the actual needs and impacts. Hence what many including me are saying is that the abortion laws should be left with the females in govt.
RTT_Rules
Making laws for people - including laws that won't affect the politicians themselves - is what governments do.  Why do you think this issue should be treated differently?

If only females can make laws in cases where only females are affected, does that mean only white females can make laws that affect only white females?  Are you saying you'd be comfortable with a complete ban on abortion, provided that the majority of female parliamentarians supported it? Can they pass a law that says women murdering other women is ok?  Do they have to have a uterus to pass a law about abortion? Do they have to be of child-bearing age?  Do they have to have children?  Do they have to have had, or not have had, an abortion?  Do male parliamentarians have a say in the abortion of male foetuses?  Can men ban other men from performing abortions?  What if women elect men to represent them?  If the issue is about a woman's right to control their own body, what gives one group of women the right to dictate what another woman does with her body?  Your stance is ridiculous.

It is also dangerous for society in a broader sense.  It implies that people in different situations are unable to understand each other, express views and reach a reasoned conclusion.  It implies that I can only be represented by, and bound by the decisions of, people who are like me.  That goes much further than the view that parliament should be as diverse as society.  Leftists see society as a system of competing "teams" where there is no truth or reason, only power.  I see people as individuals.  I'm not on the "mens" team - I'm on my team (and my family's team).  I don't feel more represented by Albo than Penny Wong, or more represented by Scomo than by Michaela Cash. But that's a much larger topic.  

This is nothing about Leftie vs Rightie, this is about the right for women to have control over their own bodies and not be subject to rules made by generally older males.
RTT_Rules
That is a quintessentially leftie view.  You disprove your own point.

Think about it this way. Your GF / wife has unwanted pregnancy. Should you the father have a controlling vote on whether it proceeds to full term?
RTT_Rules
Not what I am arguing.  

In any case, what I would do in a personal situation is not a good indicator of what rules society should have.  As an example, if my son murdered someone, I would not want him to go to jail.  That doesn't mean that I think murderers shouldn't go to jail.

Personal opnion is that there is a place for abortion and a place it shouldn't be allowed. Obviously factors such as the health of the mother, health of the fetus, stage of pregancy, prospects for the child upon birth etc all way in. Trying to draft laws around this is nearly impossibe to cover every possible combination.
RTT_Rules
Yes, it's complicated and there are competing interests, not just the mother's interests.  This part of your post show that you know this to be true.  

In general in Aus as soon as the mothers life is deemed at risk, there are no limits to when an abortion can take place. This by definition implies the fetus does not have the same legal status of a adult.

As for non health related abortion, then no they shouldn't be able to just walk off the street and get one at a moments notice, there should be a consul period of 48 - 72h.
RTT_Rules
I generally agree.  There is much to be said for the view that early-term abortions should have few restrictions, and that late term abortions should only be allowed if the life of the mother is in danger (and then only if efforts are made to save the baby if possible - you can't just kill the baby if you can deliver it safely).  

The US Democrats seem headed for no restrictions at all, up to birth.  That's totally unacceptable and I'm sure that's a view shared by the vast majority of people.

By the way, your second sentence above is not necessarily true. Even between adults, if someone is going to kill you, you have the right to kill them to save yourself (assuming you don't have alternatives).

But again what ever the laws put in place are and ulimately when it comes to the final decision then it should be done by the female portion of the population.

The alt is we revert back to the days of backyard abortions. My mum (grew up in Moree / Inverell) knows of a few cases of coat hanger abortions and the consequences there of.
RTT_Rules
No.  The alternative is that we have sensible restrictions that everyone agrees (in the usual way democracies agree these things).
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Sonofagunzel, I have no idea where this stupid notion of you or a hireling beating up your wife or daughter came from, but will you please put it away. It has no relevance to the topic and, despite your continuing protestations, neither RTT nor me nor anyone else has ever suggested such an idea.
Forget your half-baked analogies, and stick to the point. By all means discuss what others have actually written, but leave out accusations and suggestions which are figments of your own overwrought imagination. Your emotions are over-riding your brain.

- Valvegear  
No, the hypothetical is completely relevant.

What "accusations and suggestions ... are figments of [my] own overwrought imagination", specifically?

As for emotions and irrationality, why don't you try debating the topic rationally?  RTT Rules seems to be managing so far.  That last response of mine took some thought.  And it also emerged that he and I are not that far apart about how we would want abortion regulated.

Why don't you look again at the hypothetical.  You really see no parallels?
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

What "accusations and suggestions ... are figments of [my] own overwrought imagination", specifically?

- Sonofagunzel
For heaven's sake; just read the first line of my post that you have referenced. You really are in a bad way.

That's enough from me now; your irrational hypotheticals have no place in a serious debate. Others can put up with it if they like.
Valvegear
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

@Valvegear

Twice you’ve accused me of making accusations, twice I’ve asked what you’re referring to, twice you’ve failed to answer.

You can’t see any parallels in the hypothetical? Oh well, maybe you will as the discussion progresses.

You find my hypothetical hard to swallow because it’s too distressing, confronting or (as Manny put it) “dark”?  Sure is. Want to know what’s even darker?  Abortion. It’s not hypothetical, it’s real, it happens. Almost every single one is somebody’s unwanted son or daughter. Once you wrap your head around that, you become a bit less comfortable about the whole thing.

Try imagining that, and you will start to understand why many people find the issue difficult, even deeply immoral. I don’t expect you to agree with that view, but you should at least understand it.

It’s not simple. And debating this using catchphrases like “do you have a uterus?” or “a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body” is shallow to say the least.

I’m not “in a bad way”. I just disagree with you.  

But whatever, dude. You do you.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
And this folks, demonstrates quite perfectly why those that think they get their morals from the Bible are to be left in the dark ages where they belong.

Bronze age beliefs have no place in the world and decent society of today.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Don't really see the point of the topic.

Every state/territory has legalised it and there is no appetite to re-criminalise it in any of them, and it is not a matter where the federal parliament is constitutionally empowered to intervene in the extremely unlikely scenario that a majority in both houses would vote in favour.
justapassenger
This is perfect.

For the purposes of a Federal Election (any election truthfully) this is an entirely irrelevant topic.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA

Also continuing a discussion that involves you hypotheically beating your wife is not a path I wish to follow.
Fair enough then. Instead of my wife, she’s my daughter.
Sonofagunzel
Wait, don't tell me, you're a religious nutter aren't you?!

You seriously think a discussion of you hypothetically beating your daughter is different to a discussion about hypothetically beating your wife?

How about you just not beat anyone, hypothetically, or otherwise!

You just may well be dumber than Don, and Mytrone, I never previously would have thought that was achievable - thank you for teaching me something.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Thanks Aaron.

When you’re ready to respond to me and what I have written, rather than the caricature you have in your head, please post again.

You are wrong in every material respect.

And no, I’m not referring to your views on abortion.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Would you be happier if I changed the object of the hypothetical from my daughter to, say, a dog?

If not, why not?  Serious question.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Did you notice that I asked, rather than jumped down your throat based on an assumed opinion.  Maybe (in other contexts) you might give that approach a go.

Exactly, it's not simple at all.  You allow it freely, you get injustices.  You prohibit it completely, you get injustices. But the law deals with these sorts of complications all the time - that's why laws and court judgements are so damn long.

My point is, you can't kill them.

Making laws for people - including laws that won't affect the politicians themselves - is what governments do.  Why do you think this issue should be treated differently?

If only females can make laws in cases where only females are affected, does that mean only white females can make laws that affect only white females?  Are you saying you'd be comfortable with a complete ban on abortion, provided that the majority of female parliamentarians supported it? Can they pass a law that says women murdering other women is ok?  Do they have to have a uterus to pass a law about abortion? Do they have to be of child-bearing age?  Do they have to have children?  Do they have to have had, or not have had, an abortion?  Do male parliamentarians have a say in the abortion of male foetuses?  Can men ban other men from performing abortions?  What if women elect men to represent them?  If the issue is about a woman's right to control their own body, what gives one group of women the right to dictate what another woman does with her body?  Your stance is ridiculous.

It is also dangerous for society in a broader sense.  It implies that people in different situations are unable to understand each other, express views and reach a reasoned conclusion.  It implies that I can only be represented by, and bound by the decisions of, people who are like me.  That goes much further than the view that parliament should be as diverse as society.  Leftists see society as a system of competing "teams" where there is no truth or reason, only power.  I see people as individuals.  I'm not on the "mens" team - I'm on my team (and my family's team).  I don't feel more represented by Albo than Penny Wong, or more represented by Scomo than by Michaela Cash. But that's a much larger topic.  

This is nothing about Leftie vs Rightie, this is about the right for women to have control over their own bodies and not be subject to rules made by generally older males.
That is a quintessentially leftie view.  You disprove your own point.

Think about it this way. Your GF / wife has unwanted pregnancy. Should you the father have a controlling vote on whether it proceeds to full term?
Not what I am arguing.  

In any case, what I would do in a personal situation is not a good indicator of what rules society should have.  As an example, if my son murdered someone, I would not want him to go to jail.  That doesn't mean that I think murderers shouldn't go to jail.

Personal opnion is that there is a place for abortion and a place it shouldn't be allowed. Obviously factors such as the health of the mother, health of the fetus, stage of pregancy, prospects for the child upon birth etc all way in. Trying to draft laws around this is nearly impossibe to cover every possible combination.
Yes, it's complicated and there are competing interests, not just the mother's interests.  This part of your post show that you know this to be true.  

In general in Aus as soon as the mothers life is deemed at risk, there are no limits to when an abortion can take place. This by definition implies the fetus does not have the same legal status of a adult.

As for non health related abortion, then no they shouldn't be able to just walk off the street and get one at a moments notice, there should be a consul period of 48 - 72h.
I generally agree.  There is much to be said for the view that early-term abortions should have few restrictions, and that late term abortions should only be allowed if the life of the mother is in danger (and then only if efforts are made to save the baby if possible - you can't just kill the baby if you can deliver it safely).  

The US Democrats seem headed for no restrictions at all, up to birth.  That's totally unacceptable and I'm sure that's a view shared by the vast majority of people.

By the way, your second sentence above is not necessarily true. Even between adults, if someone is going to kill you, you have the right to kill them to save yourself (assuming you don't have alternatives).

But again what ever the laws put in place are and ulimately when it comes to the final decision then it should be done by the female portion of the population.

The alt is we revert back to the days of backyard abortions. My mum (grew up in Moree / Inverell) knows of a few cases of coat hanger abortions and the consequences there of.
No.  The alternative is that we have sensible restrictions that everyone agrees (in the usual way democracies agree these things).
Sonofagunzel
Allowing women to have control over their own bodies is not a leftist point of view, its bloody common sense. Only right wing bible bashing nut jobs thinks removing state control over the uterus is leftist.

Abortion is a female thing, not a white woman thing and by and large its one of the few issues that are very specific to just one sex that is very controversal but also very personal.

You keep harping on about beating or killing your wife, mother, daughter. All irrelevent to the topic and I'm not sure why you continue as such.

Lets keep it simple and OT

Your wife wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?

Your daughter wants an abortion, does she need your permission to do so?

The reason is irrelvent, the term of the pregnancy is irrelevent.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: