Abortion v non Abortion

 
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Will do as you did and start at the end.

If late term abortions were banned but early term abortions were allowed, would you be OK with it?
Yes. I have said so many times in this thread, from the very beginning.

I don’t have a firm view as to where the cut off should be. But in broad terms I think abortion should be:
  • reasonably available until the foetus is capable of feeling pain, or if earlier, when the  foetus can survive outside the mother with appropriate medical care
  • only available after that point in exceptional cases where the life of the mother is at significant and unusual risk, and then only if reasonable attempts are made to also save the baby if possible.

That’s an arbitrary compromise. If society were to insist on a completely logical and coherent cut off, it would be either birth (which I find totally unacceptable from a moral standpoint) or conception (which I would be more comfortable with from a moral standpoint than birth, but is probably too “pure” or “fundamentalist” given that the foetus has no consciousness, no independence, and is not even physically capable of feeling pain).

NSW Act
Under the new law, abortions are made available on request during the first 22 weeks of gestation. After that time, two doctors must agree that it is appropriate, based on the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances. This is similar to laws in other states and territories. However, the medical practitioner performing the abortion has obligation to give appropriate medical care if the abortion results in a live baby being born.

Most of the states are very similar,
- Varying between 16 and 24 weeks on request.
- Beyond what ever the weekly limit requires 2 x Dr's approval.
- Abortion centres have an exclusion zone for nut jobs.

The data I looked up show the chances of a fetus surviving a miscarriage below 23 weeks without major health complications is near zero.  You say when a fetus can feel pain, yeah well this should make no difference. I think the point is very clear by most. When the fetus can not be sustained on its own with medical aid.

You keep harping about 9mth termination, but when you look up the gestational age profile for abortions, but lets look at the actual data.

Australia: As of 2015, South Australia is the only Australian state or territory to keep reliable abortion statistics. During 2012, 92% of abortions were performed before 14 weeks' gestation, 6% between 14 and 20 weeks, and 2% (n=96) at a later stage. Of the 96 abortions carried out beyond 20 weeks, 53 were due to actual or probable fetal abnormality

So for SA where abortion is legal on request up to 23 weeks, less than 2% of abortions are beyond > 20 weeks and over half were due to known medical issues with the fetus, nothing about the health of the mother or if the fetus had a significant health issue not life threating.

Comparing to other countries, about 0.5% of abortions > 20 weeks, again no reasons given.  

So the 9mth termination is really another pointless example.

Sponsored advertisement

  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

All for robust discussion however, finding this a rather obscure topic for mostly? male train nerds.(me included)
We all have our opinions and nothing will alter those.
michaelgm
Welcome to Railpage.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

And the number of times you’ve referred to my answer (and you admit I answered it) is exactly zero.

That’s how relevant your question was.

My question was fairly straight to the point and basically do you support women's right of choice? You dodged it like a bullet before finally conceeding and you are still crapping on about it! Why?

Your questions were completely unrelated, harping on about old age when we are talking about unborn!
RTT_Rules

So still zero.

You still think I was evasive about my position on whether women should have the right of choice?  The following exchange took place entirely on May 11. It was the first time you asked your question, and this was my very first response. Note the bits in bold.

As I’ve been saying all along, I gave you the answer you needed, first time.  

And in the same post, I told you that your question (as asked) was irrelevant, and why. You kept insisting on an answer, which I eventually gave you. You then complained my answer was irrelevant.

And you’ve referred to that answer exactly zero times.

We also see you having an each way bet on whether you’re ok with abortion up to the point of birth. Oh yes, that’s an irrelevant question, according to you. Except my post also explains why it’s very relevant.

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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
That last sentence is not true. If someone is going to kill you, you have the right to kill them to save yourself (assuming you don't have alternatives).

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.
No.  The alternative is that we have sensible restrictions that everyone agrees (in the usual way democracies agree these things).  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.
Sonofagunzel
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

You don’t have to be any of those things to be anti-abortion. You can be female, atheist, have no interest in controlling other people’s bedrooms, and still not be pro-abortion.

Yeah, but nah. Lets look at some stats from USA as I couldn't find from Australia

  • Men: 49 percent (Legal) -47 percent
  • Women: 59 percent (Legal) -38 percent

So first point, left to men only abortion would maybe illegal. Left to women only abortion would easily be legal.
Ok so we killed that argument.
RTT_Rules
So 38% of women are against abortion?

As I said, you can be female and not pro abortion. Argument confirmed. Thanks!


  • Evangelicals: 26 percent (legal) -70 percent
  • Non-evangelicals: 65 percent (Legal) -32 percent


Left to the religious sector, abortion would be illegal. Left to the non religious sector, abortion would easily be legal.
Ok so we killed that argument.
RTT_Rules
So 32% of non evangelicals are anti abortion?

As I said, you can be uninterested in controlling other people’s bedrooms and still be anti- abortion.  Argument confirmed. Thanks again!


  • 18-34: 65 percent (legal), 32 percent illegal
  • 34-44: 60 percent-37 percent
  • 65+: 48 percent-49 percent
Left to the oldies sector, abortion would likely illegal. Left to the breeding age group sector, abortion would easily be legal.
Ok so we killed that argument.
RTT_Rules
I didn’t say anything about age groups, but ok, around 33-37% of people between 18 and 44 are anti abortion.

And nearly half of over 65s are anti abortion.  


  • Whites: 51 percent-46 percent
  • Blacks: 55 percent-39 percent
  • Latinos: 63 percent-35 percent
  • Left to the whites sector, abortion would only just be legal. Left to the non-whites sector, abortion would easily be legal.
Ok so we killed that argument.
RTT_Rules
I didn’t refer to race, but once again between 35 and 49% of various racial groups are anti abortion.


  • Whites with college: 60 percent (legal) -37 percent
  • Whites without college: 46 percent (legal) -50 percent

Left to the uneducated sector, abortion would likely illegal. Left to the educated sector, abortion would easily be legal.
(ironic since in USA whites are more likely to have college degree, yet it appears to take a degree to become pro-choice, so speaks volumes on the background of non educated)
Ok so we killed that argument.
RTT_Rules
So 37% of college educated whites are anti abortion and 50% of non college educated whites are anti abortion (and 46% of whites overall).
So all up, yes the anti-abortion brigade sterotype is -> Older, White, Male, Religious, uneducated and yes other pro abortion groups are rural based.

How well do you fit in with this profile Sonofagunzel?
RTT_Rules
At least you admit to thinking in stereotypes.

I hit 2/6 of those, in case it’s relevant (it’s not). You?

Anyway we are back to old, uneducated, white, religious males telling women what they should do with their bodies.
RTT_Rules
Missing the point as always.

But thanks for confirming that at least a third of the population across all walks of life are anti-abortion, and sometimes up to half. Which was exactly my point. Much obliged.

And that’s just on your interpretation of that study. Care to post a link so we can check for ourselves what the study actually found. Those figures aren’t, for example, the percentage of people who say they support Roe v Wade are they? And what does “legal” actually mean?  Legal up to birth, or only up to 20 weeks or so?

And by the way, apart from disconfirming your prejudices, do these stats have any relevance to what we are arguing about?  Do opinion polls determine whether an oppressed minority (eg blacks, gays, trans, unborn babies) should have rights and legal protections?
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Will do as you did and start at the end.

If late term abortions were banned but early term abortions were allowed, would you be OK with it?
Yes. I have said so many times in this thread, from the very beginning.

I don’t have a firm view as to where the cut off should be. But in broad terms I think abortion should be:
  • reasonably available until the foetus is capable of feeling pain, or if earlier, when the  foetus can survive outside the mother with appropriate medical care
  • only available after that point in exceptional cases where the life of the mother is at significant and unusual risk, and then only if reasonable attempts are made to also save the baby if possible.

That’s an arbitrary compromise. If society were to insist on a completely logical and coherent cut off, it would be either birth (which I find totally unacceptable from a moral standpoint) or conception (which I would be more comfortable with from a moral standpoint than birth, but is probably too “pure” or “fundamentalist” given that the foetus has no consciousness, no independence, and is not even physically capable of feeling pain).

NSW Act
Under the new law, abortions are made available on request during the first 22 weeks of gestation. After that time, two doctors must agree that it is appropriate, based on the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances. This is similar to laws in other states and territories. However, the medical practitioner performing the abortion has obligation to give appropriate medical care if the abortion results in a live baby being born.

Most of the states are very similar,
- Varying between 16 and 24 weeks on request.
- Beyond what ever the weekly limit requires 2 x Dr's approval.
- Abortion centres have an exclusion zone for nut jobs.

The data I looked up show the chances of a fetus surviving a miscarriage below 23 weeks without major health complications is near zero.  You say when a fetus can feel pain, yeah well this should make no difference. I think the point is very clear by most. When the fetus can not be sustained on its own with medical aid.

You keep harping about 9mth termination, but when you look up the gestational age profile for abortions, but lets look at the actual data.

Australia: As of 2015, South Australia is the only Australian state or territory to keep reliable abortion statistics. During 2012, 92% of abortions were performed before 14 weeks' gestation, 6% between 14 and 20 weeks, and 2% (n=96) at a later stage. Of the 96 abortions carried out beyond 20 weeks, 53 were due to actual or probable fetal abnormality

So for SA where abortion is legal on request up to 23 weeks, less than 2% of abortions are beyond > 20 weeks and over half were due to known medical issues with the fetus, nothing about the health of the mother or if the fetus had a significant health issue not life threating.

Comparing to other countries, about 0.5% of abortions > 20 weeks, again no reasons given.  

So the 9mth termination is really another pointless example.
RTT_Rules
Good.

In Australia we have sensible laws. Very like the ones I have been advocating here from the very beginning.

Not so in the US, where (after Roe v Wade gets overturned) laws will vary wildly between a near-complete ban in some states, to a free for all (and I mean literally free) in other states with effectively no restrictions right up to birth, to everything in between. So the full range of restrictions and availability is very topical, and very relevant.

By the way, the point at which a foetus can feel pain is thought to be at about 20 weeks.

But again, you’re missing the point of the argument in this this thread. But thanks for confirming that the settled law in Australia accords with my position, which you seem to have some unspecified problem with.

Let me know when you figure it out.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Sono,
you have been struggling to make any relevent points for 5 pages now, especially with your political inspired responses. Where as numerous people here, not just been have been right to the point.

My reference was to the stats was to demonsrate the strerotype backgrounds of the anti-abortioin brigade, for which you are on point with the sterotype.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Still zero.

No link to the stats.

No answers.

No reasons.

Thinking in stereotypes and proud of it.

Yep, you’re definitely winning this debate.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Banned
RTT, I've given up on Sono; he's gripped  by obsession and there's not much we can do with obsessive compulsives.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

@Valvegear

Grow a thicker skin.

First you’re offended at being called illiterate. Then you call someone else illiterate, and you’re offended when you’re called on it. Then you walk off in a huff because it turns out that you were the one not reading properly.

Or was it the rudeness or obsessiveness in my last reply to you:

Nice of you to allow me to answer in accordance with the permissions you laid down. I didn't realise that you were the moderator of the debate.
Yes, it was nice of me. You will note that my so called “permissions” were making it clear you could answer in any way you please - a “privilege” not afforded to me by RTT_Rules.  Did you feel constrained in any way by my “permissions”?

Answer: Neither A nor B.
Thank you for answering!  No one else has.  This is also my answer.

Despite being hypothetical, I will give you the obvious answer. The doctor delivers the baby which is capable of life on it's own two feet so to speak. The mother doesn't want the baby, it becomes a ward of the state and, hopefully is adopted. Quite obvious really.

Now, you answer my point. Why do you object to my definition of an embryo/foetus as a parasite? Do you understand the scientific definition of a parasite?
No problem.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a parasite is “an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense”. A parasite is not created by the natural operation of the host’s own biology and physiology.

I can find any number of other authoritative definitions along those lines.

A foetus may have some things in common with a parasite, but it is not a parasite.

There is also the small matter of it being a human. And a baby.

I think you already know this. Your answer to my hypothetical confirms it. I can explain why if you need me to.

To make my stance clear, I am pro abortion, provided it is done before a foetus has developed to the point where it could be delivered with a realistic chance of surviving. Once past that point, my scenario described above applies.
The practical difference between our views is a bit like the difference between calling a glass half empty and calling a glass half full.  

I am anti abortion if it occurs after the foetus can feel pain an certainly if it occurs after the foetus is capable of surviving outside the mother.

How we get there is perhaps different.

Our biggest disagreement seems to be whether men should be excluded from having a say/opinion/vote in relation to abortion laws.

Finally, I might become most annoyed at your implication that I am/may be  illiterate. You are "noticing" a strong correlation. This is normal behaviour when you are looking to support your own bias, and fortunately is recognisable as such. Just don't say it again on any post directed to me.
I will gladly lay off on the vitriol if you do too. I’ve been called a lot worse than “illiterate” in this thread.

Enough of the hypotheticals; now let's stick to reality.
Im not sure how we can usefully discuss the topic without hypotheticals. What I think you’re saying is you’d prefer hypotheticals that stay literally on topic. Fine, let’s see how that goes.

Thanks for answering reasonably and rationally.
Sonofagunzel
It’s too bad. You were one of the only ones to engage reasonably.  I thought we might get somewhere.

It’s times like these I really miss JoM. He always put up a challenging argument and didn’t give up so easily.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Banned
Grow a thicker skin.

First you’re offended at being called illiterate. Then you call someone else illiterate, and you’re offended when you’re called on it. Then you walk off in a huff because it turns out that you were the one not reading properly.
Sonofagunzel
I wasn't going to bother, but when you tell blatant lies, it demands an answer.

A. First lie: I was not offended at being called illiterate. I warned you not to do it.
B. Second lie: I did not call anyone illiterate. You suggested that meaning and you were wrong. I asked billy to to take care reading. Illiterates can't read.
C. I was not offended because I have no respect for you calling me on it. Why? Because of your habit of making up suggestions and trying to turn them into what someone said.

Two hints for you:-
1. Look up "illiterate" because you obviously don't know what it means.
2. Don't tell barefaced lies.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Grow a thicker skin.

First you’re offended at being called illiterate. Then you call someone else illiterate, and you’re offended when you’re called on it. Then you walk off in a huff because it turns out that you were the one not reading properly.
I wasn't going to bother, but when you tell blatant lies, it demands an answer.
Valvegear
It would have been better not to bother.

A. First lie: I was not offended at being called illiterate. I warned you not to do it.
Valvegear
Uh huh.

Here’s what you said, and my reply:

Finally, I might become most annoyed at your implication that I am/may be  illiterate. You are "noticing" a strong correlation. This is normal behaviour when you are looking to support your own bias, and fortunately is recognisable as such. Just don't say it again on any post directed to me.
- Valvegear
I will gladly lay off on the vitriol if you do too. I’ve been called a lot worse than “illiterate” in this thread.
Sonofagunzel


B. Second lie: I did not call anyone illiterate. You suggested that meaning and you were wrong. I asked billy to to take care reading. Illiterates can't read.
Valvegear
Uh huh.

You said:

Why did you vote for his party if you think he's evil and stupid?
- Billybaxter
Please learn to read, billy. I said evil or stupid - you know, either one or the other?
Your clairvoyance is also out of order - I didn't vote for him.
Valvegear
And just to add layers of irony, it was you that wasn’t reading properly. And you continued to not read properly and doubled down after your mistakes were pointed out.


C. I was not offended because I have no respect for you calling me on it. Why? Because of your habit of making up suggestions and trying to turn them into what someone said.
Valvegear
I don’t lose respect for people just because they disagree with me.

And you can disagree all you like about how I interpret what people say, but I don’t just make stuff up.  

I also like the way you imply I make stuff up, in almost the same breath as you say I have OCD. Whatever. I’m not offended, say whatever you like. I’m just mildly disappointed.

Two hints for you:-
1. Look up "illiterate" because you obviously don't know what it means.
2. Don't tell barefaced lies.
Valvegear
Two hints for you:
  1. If you can’t handle disagreement, and don’t enjoy the cut and thrust of lively debate, why participate?   You’ve taken this so personally that you’ve considered it appropriate to tell someone you don’t respect them.
  2. Take a leaf out of Aaron’s book and learn when to quit.

I was prepared to drop the vitriol in this thread if you did too. I’d have preferred it. But you wanted to level the same kind of insults in other threads that you told me you would not tolerate here. I called you on it in the other thread, and you then decided to double down and then withdraw all interactions with me as a result. You want to be treated with kid gloves across all threads, but you do not give others the same courtesy. That’s how I see it. Assuming that’s the real reason for your withdrawal.  

But whatever dude. This is just a couple of bored old farts arguing and sledging for smeg and gigs. I enjoy the challenge - I even enjoyed writing most of this post. Sometimes I get a few good licks in, sometimes I walk away with a couple of metaphorical bruises. All in good fun, no hard feelings.

Don’t like the game? Don’t play.

If you want to continue this discussion, or engage with me in this or other threads, go ahead, you’re welcome to do so and I will happily engage with you. Don’t take things here so seriously.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

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?
Fair argument, but at least women have skin in the game in this debate, which men totally do not. Moreso than ANY issue, abortion wholly affects one sex exclusively. That is the crux of my argument here...that MEN have no right to dictate what women should be able to do with their bodies because the issue 100% does not effect men and 100% does affect women.
Mr. Lane
For the reason given in my previous post, I disagree. It does affect men and women. Not equally, I grant you. But it affects the unborn most of all. Why are women the only ones who can speak for the unborn?

Are you saying you'd be comfortable with a complete ban on abortion, provided that the majority of female parliamentarians supported it?
Hypothetically (because an all women vote would never vote against abortion in Australia) I wouldn't like it personally because I know women who have had abortions, both legal and illegal and I think they should have access to them. I don't believe the government should be able to tell someone what they can do with their own bodies. If they did vote to ban, however, I would consider it a matter for women to work out between themselves.
Mr. Lane
I agree it wouldn’t happen here, but in America, or in particular US States, it could. What if the Democrats went nuts with fiscal irresponsibility, or put up a mentally incapacitated candidate, or went too far with the wokeism, or opened the borders, leaving ordinary people with no choice but to go Republican? They could easily end up with a conservative female majority.

I don’t understand how you can sit there content to not have any representation at all on that issue. Every politician makes laws that will never affect them. It’s their job. You have a right to have a say in that decision, in exactly the same way that all those other strangers (who happened to be women) had a right to have a say in it.

Think of it as a quid pro quo. I have a right to vote on all laws including laws that affect you (including laws that don’t affect me). You have a right to vote on all laws including laws that affect me (including laws that don’t affect you). If we break that deal, won’t everyone want their own laws? What’s the limiting principle?  

Who decides, for example, that the father has no interest?  Don’t we have to decide that as a matter of principle before we decide that only women can vote?  Who decides that, and how? If men can vote to say that they have an interest, aren’t we back to square one, with everyone having a say?


Can female religious nutters also participate in that vote?
Well I would argue that anyone with religious beliefs isn't fit to vote, but that is a separate issue. As we are not debating that, then yes they should be able to. Again, my point is that MEN have no skin in the game here and should keep out of it.

Can white women vote on what black women what to do with their bodies, and vice versa?
I don't see any relevance whatsoever to race. If women have choices, a white woman can choose to abort and a black woman can choose not to and vice versa.
Mr. Lane
But on your logic only the affected group should have a say. Abortions by black women only affect black women, and abortions of white women only affect white women. So why should black women have a say in white womens abortions and vice versa?


Do the female MPS have to have a uterus to vote on the law? 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?
  • No
  • No
  • No...why on earth would that even remotely be a factor?
  • No...again, what does that even matter?

I am not sure the point of nit picking and subdividing all of these categories or women? As long as they are not men...
Mr. Lane
Because it shows that the principle that “only those affected get a say” can be applied at lower or higher levels of generality, the category of people you choose to give voting rights to is arbitrary and there is no limiting principle. Put another way, why not say “only humans are affected, all humans have a say” or “only fertile women of child bearing age are affected, only they get a say”.


Can female MPs pass a law that says women murdering other women is ok?
Does this even need an answer?
Mr. Lane
How is it different in principle?  Only women are affected, only women get a say.



Can men ban other men from performing abortions?
Eh, no. If the procedure is legal, why shouldn't men be able to perform it? I totally don't get your angle here at all.
Mr. Lane
Again, it’s to point out the arbitrariness of your principle.

First, the question is whether it should be made illegal, so the fact that it is not already illegal is irrelevant.

Second, men perform abortions, so why can’t men prevent men from doing that?


What if women voters elected men to represent them?
Now this is more interesting. I would say that it should be up to women to be informed about the policy position of the MPs they are electing male OR female. You get the MPs you vote for. I would, however, argue that male MPs should abstain on the floor of the house on this issue.
Mr. Lane
Leaving all the women who elected them unrepresented. Doesn’t sound fair to me.


Do male parliamentarians have a say in the abortion of male foetuses?
I don't get why this even a thought in your head at all. Why would the foetus being male somehow give men a right to vote on the abortion procedure? Why should a man care more about a male foetus vs female? This is about women bodies, not the gender of the foetus.
Mr. Lane
You said only women are affected. That’s not true. Male and female foetuses are also affected. But you say men can’t vote on things that only affect women, so presumably men can only vote to protect male foetuses.


you will find that there are no good answers. You will see that your argument is incoherent and illogical.
Except I provided logical and coherent answers to what were mostly irrelevant questions.
Mr. Lane
Except that you snipped the bit of my sentence that presented the difficulty for your position. You can’t point to a consistent principle that distinguishes my silly exclusive voting proposals from your exclusive voting proposal. And you can’t point to how your voting proposal addresses the issues with it that I’ve raised. You’ve also not addressed how such a voting system could work in practice.


Earlier in your post you acknowledged that there is a victim in a late term abortion.

But even though you acknowledge this, you blithely decide that because the victims are defenceless and voiceless, and you yourself are not affected, there’s no need or moral obligation on you to act to protect them - even if you were a parliamentarian with responsibility for the law. In fact, you go further and somehow conclude that it would be wrong for you to do so!

You acknowledge that there are victims, but you think the only people who can vote on protections are those in a position to be the potential victimisers. On your logic, only men should be entitled to vote on laws banning men from sexually assaulting women.

You are quite prepared to live with a situation where dogs and cats have greater protection from abuse and neglect under the law than human babies about to be born.

All because you don’t want to carry the moral burden of the decision as to whether those babies deserve protection.
I acknowledge that the issue is a complex one with no perfect answers in all cases.
Mr. Lane
So you can just ignore the defenceless victims?

I also acknowledge that the issue is not one that affects me personally and never will, yet unwanted pregnancies have enormous life consequences for women who have them and not just financial consequences. Therefore I take what I believe is the morally correct position and leave the issue for women to debate and decide for themselves and as I believe women are quite capable of coming to sensible, practical and morally sound conclusions, I leave the decision to them.
Mr. Lane
Well, you’re saying you’d go a bit further than that. If all you are saying was that you would abstain, fine. But you’re saying all men must abstain - if you were in charge you would prevent men from voting on the issue. You’d prevent me from voting on it.

You want to impose your personal beliefs on others even when such an imposition will never affect you negatively. It is easy for you to moralise and lecture when you will never have to deal with the negative outcomes of what you are calling for.
Mr. Lane
So do you. You are imposing your personal beliefs on me. More importantly, you are imposing your personal beliefs on the unborn, who will die as a result. A result that you also will never have to deal with.

I’m not moralising any more than you are.  You are moralising about womens rights, I’m moralising about the rights of the unborn. We are both moralising about the proper limits for human rights, including the right to life, which affects everyone.

And you are not carrying any moral burden either. You don't even get to choose if if you want an abortion.
Mr. Lane
But again you gloss over the fact that there is victim here with no choice and no one to speak for them. Your position is that only the potential victimisers can decide what protection their potential victims will get.


Women do not have full freedom to do as they please. Neither do men. You think it would be ok for women to have the unfettered right to kill their unborn child at nine months, even if they have unfettered access to early term abortion.
Men do have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. So should women.
Mr. Lane
No they don’t. Neither men, nor women, have the unfettered right to do as they please if their actions affect someone else. That someone else here includes the unborn.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Still zero.

No link to the stats.

No answers.

No reasons.

Thinking in stereotypes and I'm proud of it.
Sonofagunzel
Yep, just nailed it. You have accurately discribed your own long winded posts in one!
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Still zero.

No link to the stats.

No answers.

No reasons.

Thinking in stereotypes and I'm proud of it.
Yep, just nailed it. You have accurately discribed your own long winded posts in one!
RTT_Rules
Oh touché.Rolling Eyes
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
1) Think of it as a quid pro quo. I have a right to vote on all laws including laws that affect you (including laws that don’t affect me). You have a right to vote on all laws including laws that affect me (including laws that don’t affect you). If we break that deal, won’t everyone want their own laws? What’s the limiting principle?

2) But on your logic only the affected group should have a say. Abortions by black women only affect black women, and abortions of white women only affect white women. So why should black women have a say in white womens abortions and vice versa?
Sono.....

You are really struggling with fairly basic concept.

1) Find me a law that women can vote on that affects what does and doesn't happen with the equivalent of your uterus. You harp on and on and on trying to be all high horse on the moral high ground, but on this one basic concept, you keep making up all sorts of irrlevent comparisons, yet you cannot acknowledge that this issue applies to women and women only and there is no parallel for men.

2) Once again you are demonstarting ignorance or is it arrogance. Child bearing is something that affects WOMAN, not black women, not white women, but ALL WOMEN. again why is this so hard to understand and why do you go off on a tangent trying find save your own failed argument?

ONE more time. Women are the ones with a uterus, they are the ones that have to take responsibility for the outcome regardless of abortion of deliver, they are the ones who will be affected finacially, mentally, socially, career and physically. When YOU are capable of experiening all this, directly, then you get a say, until then your opnion in womens bodies by women is as welcome as a fart in an elevator.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

1) Think of it as a quid pro quo. I have a right to vote on all laws including laws that affect you (including laws that don’t affect me). You have a right to vote on all laws including laws that affect me (including laws that don’t affect you). If we break that deal, won’t everyone want their own laws? What’s the limiting principle?

2) But on your logic only the affected group should have a say. Abortions by black women only affect black women, and abortions of white women only affect white women. So why should black women have a say in white womens abortions and vice versa?

You are really struggling with fairly basic concept.

1) Find me a law that women can vote on that affects what does and doesn't happen with the equivalent of your uterus.
RTT_Rules
Historically, what about conscription?
You harp on and on and on trying to be all high horse on the moral high ground, but on this one basic concept, you keep making up all sorts of irrlevent comparisons, yet you cannot acknowledge that this issue applies to women and women only and there is no parallel for men.
RTT_Rules
There doesn’t have to be a direct parallel. The common principle is that your unfettered right to do as you please ends at the point you begin affecting someone else’s rights. Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose. When rights intersect or conflict, the need to be balanced against each other. Biology has created an additional instance of that principle for women - what happens when the other person is inside you?

You keep ignoring the baby.


2) Once again you are demonstarting ignorance or is it arrogance. Child bearing is something that affects WOMAN, not black women, not white women, but ALL WOMEN. again why is this so hard to understand and why do you go off on a tangent trying find save your own failed argument?
RTT_Rules
i cant help it if you don’t get the point. Not convinced? So be it.


ONE more time. Women are the ones with a uterus, they are the ones that have to take responsibility for the outcome regardless of abortion of deliver, they are the ones who will be affected finacially, mentally, socially, career and physically. When YOU are capable of experiening all this, directly, then you get a say, until then your opnion in womens bodies by women is as welcome as a fart in an elevator.
RTT_Rules
Once again, the baby doesn’t figure in your thinking.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

And still zero reference to my answer to your all important totally not completely irrelevant question.

Can we have the link to the stats you cited in your post about anti-abortionist demographics please?

At least this time there was some semblance of actual argument. So that’s an improvement.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Simple answer to your questions above is, if the fetus has the capabilty of self sustaining life (with medical aid) then its future is now controlled by the state and deemed a human and termination at 9mths is murder.
RTT_Rules
Thats an odd way to phrase it. It doesn’t become murder because the child is owned/controlled by the state, it becomes murder because the baby has natural and legal human rights, one of which is the right to life.

You previously said:

Unless you own a uterus, its neither your decision nor is your opnion or view required and then only unless you are asked.

Are you saying that when the baby is able to survive outside the mother, it is now ok for men to express a view about whether the mother can have an abortion?  In your view, should the state be able to require her to go to full term at that point?  What about the father?

If the said fetus is not capable is sustaining its life outside the mother, then its not controlled by the state, rather the mother as its effectively an extension of her own body despite it parasitic properties and its worth noting how much a human fetus will suck from his host to stay alive. Hence termination is not murder.
RTT_Rules
Are you saying that when the baby is able to survive outside the mother, the mother no longer has the exclusive right  to determine what to do with her body?  In your view, should the state be able to require her to go to full term at that point?

This doesn’t mean that the uterus is owned by the state, any more than a parent is owned by the state because they are required to look after their children.

But should the mother entitled to have the foetus removed (alive) prematurely, ie after viability but prior to full term?

Looking after elderly people is respect for their longterm contribution to society.
RTT_Rules
Even career criminals?  The lifelong profoundly disabled? Dole bludgers?  What contribution have they made?

I think you’ll find that the reason it’s wrong to kill or abandon the elderly doesn’t rest on their past contribution to society.  It rests on their human rights.

Assisted suicide should be available for those who physical and/or mental state have deterioted beyond a reasonable and comfortable existance. However the choice is made by the person involved in advance.
RTT_Rules
What choice do you think a foetus would make?  Interesting you say we can’t kill the mentally disabled unless they have previously expressed that wish.

At what point does life start? Is it not the point of which the male proceeds to do his "thing", after which any intention to stop conception is effectively a early stage termination. Therefore the pill or contraception is effectively a day 0 abortion.
RTT_Rules
Nope. No individual with its own DNA has been created prior to conception. On your logic, abstinence is also abortion.

Or the morning after pill a day 1 abortion?
RTT_Rules
Yes, it is. Whether it should be banned is another matter.No, it's not an abortion either.

Should a woman pregnant due to rape/incest be forced to continue with her unwanted and violence induced pregnancy?
RTT_Rules
In the case of rape, she should be able to abort early in the term, but not late in the term. Same as everyone else. It’s not the baby’s fault, and 20 weeks or so is enough time to decide.

[inserted 8.20am 27/5] In the case of incest, it may be more difficult.  There are all the risks to the baby that come with inbreeding. The mother may be impacted by continuing abuse or undue influence by the father/family member.  She may not have been able to escape from that situation in the 20 weeks or so allowed for a decision in other situations.  But it still feels like an injustice to the baby to allow abortion right up to the point of birth.  Adoption might be an option if the pregnancy already late-term. These are rare and exceptional cases and suitable exceptions, procedures and support may be appropriate.

Most abortions are commited between Day 0 and the end of the 4th month by which time the mother is aware of her status and made the decision to terminate. I'm not a fan of abortion used as contraception
RTT_Rules
Why?

 and why there should be both a mental and physical assessment provided with a 48h cooling off period.
RTT_Rules
Why?

But its her decision
RTT_Rules
But is it though?  You’ve just set out a whole bunch of rules that are somewhat arbitrary (that doesn’t mean they’re wrong) as to when it is permissible and when not.

and the one thing we learnt from the past was banning abortion did not stop abortion. Talk women in their 80 and 90's about what used to happen, they all know and my 75 year old mother said it was far from rare. Its only dumb males who couldn't handle the truth and usually the abortion was to stop the young unmarried woman being kicked out of the house by her father more concerned about what others would think and/or bashing the bible.
RTT_Rules
No one here is advocating a full ban. Some US states are, though. I don’t agree with that kind of draconian policy.

The point is there are over 60,000 abortions per year in Australia, (how many are due to problems, risk to mother, rape I don't know, wasn't in the states I looked up, but lets say half)
RTT_Rules
I don’t concede that it’s half, but are you saying that half are unjustified?

My question is would Australia be better off with these extra humans. How many would simply add to the welfare pool? We do not have the systems in place to look after the unwanted children born today, these extra's won't imporve the situation.
RTT_Rules
Why not kill live people who can’t complain?  This argument only works if the foetus is not human. Is a foetus not human?

Likewise there are 10's millions of abortions in the world each year, do I believe India, Bangaladesh, Africa etc would be better off with these extra humans. Certainly not. The world has a population problem, the number one cause for climate change is keeping the already  overpopulated planet fed, transport, warm, cool etc. We do not need unwanted extras adding to these problems, many of which would die in early childhood etc. Spend 10min walking the streets of India and not the tourist areas and you have no soul if you think these woman should not have the option of safe volunatry terminations.
RTT_Rules
You forget again I’m not advocating a full ban or anything like it. My argument is about who has a say, and against the baby having no rights at all, and against late term abortions (other than in limited exceptional circumstances).

Being an anti-abortionist sounds all warm and humble and may help you sleep at night, but these people do not own the problem once they have closed an abortion clinic or convinced a mother to change her mind and then gone home to their nice middle class house with food in the fridge.
RTT_Rules
I could make a similar point in reverse.

There is no follow up, no funding, no education. What sounds good in a developed country with the never ending welfare system spending other peoples money to solve your social agenda is a complete disasater in a 3rd world nation.

I hope one day in the future there is no need for non-medical or non-rape induced abortion,
RTT_Rules
Why?

As for do fetus feel pain? Probably, but who remembers the pain of their first vaccinations or falling over trying to walk?
RTT_Rules
So it’s ok to inflict pain on, even kill, a live baby because it won’t remember the pain?  Do you hear yourself?


___________________________________________________________________________________
Edited 26/5 at 1.20pm to correct a mistake about the way the morning after pill works.  I thought that it was another name for RU486 but that's not correct.  The morning after pill prevents conception.  RU486 is different, it basically causes a quick and early miscarriage.

Edited 27/5 at 8.20am in relation to incest.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Banned
If you want to continue this discussion, or engage with me in this or other threads, go ahead, you’re welcome to do so and I will happily engage with you.
Sonofagunzel


Thanks to Sonofagunzel; he pulled all of the relevant quotations to prove that what I wrote is true. He told lies. He refuses to accept the truth when it's there in black and white.

Don’t take things here so seriously.
Sonofagunzel
Now I have heard it all!

TTFN.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Thanks to Sonpofagunzel; he pulled all of the relevant quotations to prove that what I wrote is true. He told lies. He refuses to accept the truth when it's there in black and white.
Valvegear
Everyone can form their own opinion as to whether my interpretation of what you wrote was fair.  To me, what I wrote was clearly fair.

They can also form their own judgement on the more serious accusation that what I wrote was deliberately baseless and intentionally deceptive so as to amount to lies.  I know what conclusion they will come to.

Don’t take things here so seriously.
Now I have heard it all!
Valvegear
It's good advice.  


TTFN.
Valvegear
That would be wise, if you can manage it.

You do yourself a disservice with these histrionics.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Simple answer to your questions above is, if the fetus has the capabilty of self sustaining life (with medical aid) then its future is now controlled by the state and deemed a human and termination at 9mths is murder.
Thats an odd way to phrase it. It doesn’t become murder because the child is owned/controlled by the state, it becomes murder because the baby has natural and legal human rights, one of which is the right to life.

You previously said:

Unless you own a uterus, its neither your decision nor is your opnion or view required and then only unless you are asked.

Are you saying that when the baby is able to survive outside the mother, it is now ok for men to express a view about whether the mother can have an abortion?  In your view, should the state be able to require her to go to full term at that point?  What about the father?

If the said fetus is not capable is sustaining its life outside the mother, then its not controlled by the state, rather the mother as its effectively an extension of her own body despite it parasitic properties and its worth noting how much a human fetus will suck from his host to stay alive. Hence termination is not murder.
Are you saying that when the baby is able to survive outside the mother, the mother no longer has the exclusive right  to determine what to do with her body?  In your view, should the state be able to require her to go to full term at that point?

This doesn’t mean that the uterus is owned by the state, any more than a parent is owned by the state because they are required to look after their children.

But should the mother entitled to have the foetus removed (alive) prematurely, ie after viability but prior to full term?

Looking after elderly people is respect for their longterm contribution to society.
Even career criminals?  The lifelong profoundly disabled? Dole bludgers?  What contribution have they made?

I think you’ll find that the reason it’s wrong to kill or abandon the elderly doesn’t rest on their past contribution to society.  It rests on their human rights.

Assisted suicide should be available for those who physical and/or mental state have deterioted beyond a reasonable and comfortable existance. However the choice is made by the person involved in advance.
What choice do you think a foetus would make?  Interesting you say we can’t kill the mentally disabled unless they have previously expressed that wish.

At what point does life start? Is it not the point of which the male proceeds to do his "thing", after which any intention to stop conception is effectively a early stage termination. Therefore the pill or contraception is effectively a day 0 abortion.
Nope. No individual with its own DNA has been created prior to conception. On your logic, abstinence is also abortion.

Or the morning after pill a day 1 abortion?
Yes, it is. Whether it should be banned is another matter.No, it's not an abortion either.

Should a woman pregnant due to rape/incest be forced to continue with her unwanted and violence induced pregnancy?
In the case of rape, she should be able to abort early in the term, but not late in the term. Same as everyone else. It’s not the baby’s fault, and 20 weeks or so is enough time to decide.

[inserted 8.20am 27/5] In the case of incest, it may be more difficult.  There are all the risks to the baby that come with inbreeding. The mother may be impacted by continuing abuse or undue influence by the father/family member.  She may not have been able to escape from that situation in the 20 weeks or so allowed for a decision in other situations.  But it still feels like an injustice to the baby to allow abortion right up to the point of birth.  Adoption might be an option if the pregnancy already late-term. These are rare and exceptional cases and suitable exceptions, procedures and support may be appropriate.

Most abortions are commited between Day 0 and the end of the 4th month by which time the mother is aware of her status and made the decision to terminate. I'm not a fan of abortion used as contraception
Why?

 and why there should be both a mental and physical assessment provided with a 48h cooling off period.
Why?

But its her decision
But is it though?  You’ve just set out a whole bunch of rules that are somewhat arbitrary (that doesn’t mean they’re wrong) as to when it is permissible and when not.

and the one thing we learnt from the past was banning abortion did not stop abortion. Talk women in their 80 and 90's about what used to happen, they all know and my 75 year old mother said it was far from rare. Its only dumb males who couldn't handle the truth and usually the abortion was to stop the young unmarried woman being kicked out of the house by her father more concerned about what others would think and/or bashing the bible.
No one here is advocating a full ban. Some US states are, though. I don’t agree with that kind of draconian policy.

The point is there are over 60,000 abortions per year in Australia, (how many are due to problems, risk to mother, rape I don't know, wasn't in the states I looked up, but lets say half)
I don’t concede that it’s half, but are you saying that half are unjustified?

My question is would Australia be better off with these extra humans. How many would simply add to the welfare pool? We do not have the systems in place to look after the unwanted children born today, these extra's won't imporve the situation.
Why not kill live people who can’t complain?  This argument only works if the foetus is not human. Is a foetus not human?

Likewise there are 10's millions of abortions in the world each year, do I believe India, Bangaladesh, Africa etc would be better off with these extra humans. Certainly not. The world has a population problem, the number one cause for climate change is keeping the already  overpopulated planet fed, transport, warm, cool etc. We do not need unwanted extras adding to these problems, many of which would die in early childhood etc. Spend 10min walking the streets of India and not the tourist areas and you have no soul if you think these woman should not have the option of safe volunatry terminations.
You forget again I’m not advocating a full ban or anything like it. My argument is about who has a say, and against the baby having no rights at all, and against late term abortions (other than in limited exceptional circumstances).

Being an anti-abortionist sounds all warm and humble and may help you sleep at night, but these people do not own the problem once they have closed an abortion clinic or convinced a mother to change her mind and then gone home to their nice middle class house with food in the fridge.
I could make a similar point in reverse.

There is no follow up, no funding, no education. What sounds good in a developed country with the never ending welfare system spending other peoples money to solve your social agenda is a complete disasater in a 3rd world nation.

I hope one day in the future there is no need for non-medical or non-rape induced abortion,
Why?

As for do fetus feel pain? Probably, but who remembers the pain of their first vaccinations or falling over trying to walk?
So it’s ok to inflict pain on, even kill, a live baby because it won’t remember the pain?  Do you hear yourself?


___________________________________________________________________________________
Edited 26/5 at 1.20pm to correct a mistake about the way the morning after pill works.  I thought that it was another name for RU486 but that's not correct.  The morning after pill prevents conception.  RU486 is different, it basically causes a quick and early miscarriage.

Edited 27/5 at 8.20am in relation to incest.
Sonofagunzel

The law can only be black and white, abortion is not a black and white topic, hence its best for the law to stay out of it as it just becomes unworkable and generally unenforceable which is one of the key reasons abortion is generally being decriminalized globally. In addition recognizing the law was written by older males and this is very much a female issue and the state to get out of women's bodies.

The father has no controlling input into whether the mother continues with the pregnancy or not. Its fairly simple.

The mother has around 4 months to decide, by which time 99.9% of women will know they are pregnant and after which it gets messy as the baby could be terminated and survive with medical support. The data clearly shows the number of such late terminations is very rare (
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Did you want to finish your post before I reply?

I thought there may be some reasons or answers coming …
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Did you want to finish your post before I reply?

I thought there may be some reasons or answers coming …
Sonofagunzel
The Railpage bug that cuts responses.

I've already typed it once, I cannot be bothered to type it again and likely have it cut off again.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

The Railpage bug that cuts responses.

I've already typed it once, I cannot be bothered to type it again and likely have it cut off again.
RTT_Rules


I don't get responses cut off, but sometimes I lose them entirely.  I get a "no post mode specified".  Only happens on long responses, or you try to post a long time after you started the post.

If this happens when I'm:
  • using an iphone, the back button on Safari will take me back to the "post a reply" form, including the full response I typed.  Sometimes hitting "submit" works the second time, or if not, you can go into "View source" mode (press the button that looks like a page icon in the "post a reply" form, next to the smiley face) and then copy all into a new "post a reply" form  
  • using a computer, you can go back but you've lost any typing you did since you last hit "Preview".  So I  hit "Preview" every so often, or copy the post (in View Source mode) before I try to hit "Submit", or I work on a reply offline and then cut and paste into the form.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Because Railpage ate your homework (or at least some of it), I won't assume that you ignored my questions.  There's a couple of answers I'm very interested in getting, though (see bold).

Simple answer to your questions above is, if the fetus has the capabilty of self sustaining life (with medical aid) then its future is now controlled by the state and deemed a human and termination at 9mths is murder.
Thats an odd way to phrase it. It doesn’t become murder because the child is owned/controlled by the state, it becomes murder because the baby has natural and legal human rights, one of which is the right to life.

You previously said:

Unless you own a uterus, its neither your decision nor is your opnion or view required and then only unless you are asked.

Are you saying that when the baby is able to survive outside the mother, it is now ok for men to express a view about whether the mother can have an abortion?  In your view, should the state be able to require her to go to full term at that point?  What about the father?

If the said fetus is not capable is sustaining its life outside the mother, then its not controlled by the state, rather the mother as its effectively an extension of her own body despite it parasitic properties and its worth noting how much a human fetus will suck from his host to stay alive. Hence termination is not murder.
Are you saying that when the baby is able to survive outside the mother, the mother no longer has the exclusive right  to determine what to do with her body?  In your view, should the state be able to require her to go to full term at that point?
- Sonofagunzel
RTT_Rules
Can you answer this please?

This doesn’t mean that the uterus is owned by the state, any more than a parent is owned by the state because they are required to look after their children.

But should the mother entitled to have the foetus removed (alive) prematurely, ie after viability but prior to full term?

- Sonofagunzel
RTT_Rules
Can you answer this please?

Looking after elderly people is respect for their longterm contribution to society.
Even career criminals?  The lifelong profoundly disabled? Dole bludgers?  What contribution have they made?

I think you’ll find that the reason it’s wrong to kill or abandon the elderly doesn’t rest on their past contribution to society.  It rests on their human rights.

- Sonofagunzel
RTT_Rules
I will assume you agree with this.

Assisted suicide should be available for those who physical and/or mental state have deterioted beyond a reasonable and comfortable existance. However the choice is made by the person involved in advance.
What choice do you think a foetus would make?  Interesting you say we can’t kill the mentally disabled unless they have previously expressed that wish.

At what point does life start? Is it not the point of which the male proceeds to do his "thing", after which any intention to stop conception is effectively a early stage termination. Therefore the pill or contraception is effectively a day 0 abortion.
Nope. No individual with its own DNA has been created prior to conception. On your logic, abstinence is also abortion.

Or the morning after pill a day 1 abortion?
Yes, it is. Whether it should be banned is another matter.No, it's not an abortion either.

Should a woman pregnant due to rape/incest be forced to continue with her unwanted and violence induced pregnancy?
In the case of rape, she should be able to abort early in the term, but not late in the term. Same as everyone else. It’s not the baby’s fault, and 20 weeks or so is enough time to decide.

[inserted 8.20am 27/5] In the case of incest, it may be more difficult.  There are all the risks to the baby that come with inbreeding. The mother may be impacted by continuing abuse or undue influence by the father/family member.  She may not have been able to escape from that situation in the 20 weeks or so allowed for a decision in other situations.  But it still feels like an injustice to the baby to allow abortion right up to the point of birth.  Adoption might be an option if the pregnancy already late-term. These are rare and exceptional cases and suitable exceptions, procedures and support may be appropriate.

Most abortions are commited between Day 0 and the end of the 4th month by which time the mother is aware of her status and made the decision to terminate. I'm not a fan of abortion used as contraception
Why?

 and why there should be both a mental and physical assessment provided with a 48h cooling off period.
Why?

- Sonofagunzel
RTT_Rules
Why aren't you a fan of abortion as contraception?

But its her decision
But is it though?  You’ve just set out a whole bunch of rules that are somewhat arbitrary (that doesn’t mean they’re wrong) as to when it is permissible and when not.

and the one thing we learnt from the past was banning abortion did not stop abortion. Talk women in their 80 and 90's about what used to happen, they all know and my 75 year old mother said it was far from rare. Its only dumb males who couldn't handle the truth and usually the abortion was to stop the young unmarried woman being kicked out of the house by her father more concerned about what others would think and/or bashing the bible.
No one here is advocating a full ban. Some US states are, though. I don’t agree with that kind of draconian policy.

The point is there are over 60,000 abortions per year in Australia, (how many are due to problems, risk to mother, rape I don't know, wasn't in the states I looked up, but lets say half)
I don’t concede that it’s half, but are you saying that half are unjustified?

My question is would Australia be better off with these extra humans. How many would simply add to the welfare pool? We do not have the systems in place to look after the unwanted children born today, these extra's won't imporve the situation.
Why not kill live people who can’t complain?  This argument only works if the foetus is not human. Is a foetus not human?

Likewise there are 10's millions of abortions in the world each year, do I believe India, Bangaladesh, Africa etc would be better off with these extra humans. Certainly not. The world has a population problem, the number one cause for climate change is keeping the already  overpopulated planet fed, transport, warm, cool etc. We do not need unwanted extras adding to these problems, many of which would die in early childhood etc. Spend 10min walking the streets of India and not the tourist areas and you have no soul if you think these woman should not have the option of safe volunatry terminations.
You forget again I’m not advocating a full ban or anything like it. My argument is about who has a say, and against the baby having no rights at all, and against late term abortions (other than in limited exceptional circumstances).

Being an anti-abortionist sounds all warm and humble and may help you sleep at night, but these people do not own the problem once they have closed an abortion clinic or convinced a mother to change her mind and then gone home to their nice middle class house with food in the fridge.
I could make a similar point in reverse.

There is no follow up, no funding, no education. What sounds good in a developed country with the never ending welfare system spending other peoples money to solve your social agenda is a complete disasater in a 3rd world nation.

I hope one day in the future there is no need for non-medical or non-rape induced abortion,
Why?

As for do fetus feel pain? Probably, but who remembers the pain of their first vaccinations or falling over trying to walk?
So it’s ok to inflict pain on, even kill, a live baby because it won’t remember the pain? Do you hear yourself?

- Sonofagunzel
RTT_Rules
Can you answer this please?  Do you concede that the fact that the baby can't remember the pain is not a good reason to allow abortion (or infanticide, for that matter)?

Do you concede that if the foetus can feel pain, that this is something to consider in relation to whether and when abortion should be allowed?

The law can only be black and white, abortion is not a black and white topic, hence its best for the law to stay out of it as it just becomes unworkable and generally unenforceable which is one of the key reasons abortion is generally being decriminalized globally.
RTT_Rules
Laws deal with much more complicated stuff than abortion - murder laws are complex, divorce laws are complex, negligence, corporate regulation, building codes, child custody, etc etc.  The law deals with lots of complicated and nuanced situations.  Why is abortion so different?

What’s wrong with current law?

In addition recognizing the law was written by older males and this is very much a female issue and the state to get out of women's bodies.
RTT_Rules
You forgot the baby again.

And what, exactly (if anything) is your problem with current Australian law?  Or my position on what the law should say?

You still haven't really justified why it matters that the the laws were written by older males.  So what?  If the law is right, who cares who wrote it?  If the law is wrong, who cares who wrote it?  

If your point is that only women should have a say in deciding whether the law is right or wrong, you haven’t justified why this should be the case. Abortion doesn’t just affect women, it affects the baby. In addition, the principles at stake - who has the right to life and who doesn’t - affect or potentially affect everyone.

The father has no controlling input into whether the mother continues with the pregnancy or not. Its fairly simple.
RTT_Rules

I agree. However, although you and I share that view, does that mean that everyone must share that view?

Think of it this way. Suppose the mother wants to kill the baby immediately after birth - I’d say the father would have the right to stop it in that case, wouldn’t he?  Is it self-evident that the position is different 5 minutes earlier?  Is self evident that the father is completely unaffected by and has absolutely no legitimate interest a late term abortion? Is your answer a value judgment or an objective fact?

I’m not saying that an individual father should have a say in the mothers’ decision whether to abort their baby. I don’t think he should. The question here is why you think you have the right to prevent someone who doesn’t agree with that view to express their view when voting on what the law should be. You’re arguing not only that that their view is wrong in your opinion, you’re arguing that their view is so wrong that it’s completely illegitimate to even express that view in democratic debate.

The mother has around 4 months to decide, by which time 99.9% of women will know they are pregnant and after which it gets messy as the baby could be terminated and survive with medical support. The data clearly shows the number of such late terminations is very rare (
RTT_Rules
So?  Why does that mean that late term abortion shouldn't be banned or heavily restricted?

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: