The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Killed for being the wrong gender > Comments

Killed for being the wrong gender : Comments

By Bill Muehlenberg, published 30/4/2013

A Melbourne doctor has blown the whistle on parents who demanded an abortion - because they didn't want a girl.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Dr Hobart is a Catholic and does not refer anyone to abortion clinics.
More info here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/dr-mark-hobart-who-refused-couple-abortion-for-wanting-a-boy-believes-abortion-is-murder/story-e6frg6n6-1226631861565
Posted by Candide, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 9:17:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another anti-abortion rant. It started by deploring an abortion because the fetus was female. That is something I agree with.

However, the article very shortly turned into a rant against abortion. We can keep abortions at a minimum by informing sexually active people about contraception. Somehow these rants never advocate avoiding pregnancy in the first place other than by not engaging in sex. I still think of my cousin who committed suicide during WW2. Her boyfriend went off to war, and she found she was pregnant. Her boyfriend had already been killed in action when she found that out. She felt she was in no position to have or raise a child so she committed suicide. If she had access to an abortionist she could have lived on and maybe had a baby later or maybe not. However, as it was she ended it.

If women lose abortion rights and they need an abortion the choice becomes the coathanger, the backyard butcher or suicide. I don't want to bring back those days.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 9:31:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't believe in sex selection abortions unless there are genetic diseases in the family.

However, this author doesn't believe in choices for women at all, and is really pushing his own religious barrow.

What business is it of his what unrelated females do with their own bodies?
Abortion is legal in Australia...
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 9:32:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not sure I agree with Bill there. A woman has a right to choose but I'm not sure she has a right to choose the sex of a baby.

It mimics the attitudes of China's one child state and the anti-population laws of the last 30 years or so. But for very different reasons.

Most middle and upper middle class families are only having one child (a max two). Consumer culture has become so ingrained with 'a right to choose' that this now had leaked out in to conception and gender selection. But why are males valued so much in an advanced capitalist society? It comes down to personal preference, like preferring full fat creamed milk over skinny milk.

If say, the Stable Population Party or one of its socio-biological ilk came to power, enforcing a one child state, then the premium of male children might go up.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 10:16:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide - what's your point? Does that make it any less abhorrent or are you simply trying to steer the discussion another direction?

Cards on the table - I am against abortion. Being a fairly well educated person, married to a midwife of 25 years experience, I did not come to this decision lightly.

I do not condone people protesting outside clinics, etc as this achieves nothing, other than situations such as the tragic one outlined by David F. Care and concern gazumps protest!

There is always a choice and that choice is usually better than termination.

Please don't cloud the issue with "What about people who become pregnant through rape?" etc as that is such a tiny proportion of the cases, that it should be what makes the decision. Yes, incredibly tragic, but most abortions are not for this reason.
Posted by rational-debate, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 10:33:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
non-rational-debate what has your education level or the fact you're married toa mid wife got to do with anything?

Please tell us why you are anti-choice rather then appeal to CV.

As other have already noted, this post is about the author's reglious values and nothing else. As i say to anybody that's the point of choice, if you don't think your should have an abortion then don't have one
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 11:10:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately, humans do not adhere to the ideal the all (human) life in sacred. We care more about our immediate family than some random person in Africa. We care more about the death of a small child than we do of a 90 year old. Hence, when we decide whether it is ok to kill a developing fetus, we are making a value judgement on life. A person who does not agree with this is probably too busy in a 3rd world country helping the starving to worry about reading OLO.

You may notice that I am neither defending or supporting abortion with this statement. This is due to the fact that we all value life differently. I probably value the lives of my own family more than yours, and vice versa. Therefore when it comes to abortion, who are we to force our individual values onto another person?

One small piece of info - Conception is not a magical event. It is a process of cell/DNA fusion which has mechanisms conserved through many other processes in your body. In fact, I will be inducing a few hundred tomorrow (sheep) to achieve success in a handful. If this is due to the work of a designer, he's a pretty sloppy chap.
Posted by Stezza, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 11:30:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bill makes some excellent points.

Women need to be fully informed that in choosing abortion they are choosing to end the life of their offspring.

Are these women aware of the significant psychological risks associated with abortion? The reality is that no one can escape the ramifications of ending a life. There is trauma and grief involved.
Posted by JY of Adelaide, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 11:32:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is really tiresome to keep hearing about a woman's choice as to what she does with her own body. (in the comments, not from Bill)Of course it is a woman's choice what she does with her own body. ABORTION is not about the woman's body it is about the babies body. Where is the baby's choice?
Posted by sharan, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 11:45:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who supports abortion of children simply being the wrong gender must have something wrong with them.
I can't believe some of the stuff I read - for example, the opinion piece in today's Herald Sun - the author says that gender selection abortion is vile, but then goes on to support it! (Because choice is good)
When did people become so nuts?
---
We should be demanding politicians change the law to put restrictions on the current situation with abortion: open-slather for any reason - and if a doctor doesn't want to be involved he can lose his license.
Posted by MrAnderson, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 11:51:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why the outcry that a baby girl was killed because she was a girl? There's no good reason to directly kill a baby - medical intervention to save the mother's life which indirectly kills the baby is not abortion - and the fact that so many people argue over what is or isn't justification for abortion shows how very warped our logic has become. I'm glad to see that Dr Hobart is consistent in his oath to 'do no harm'. The real issue here isn't why the baby girl was killed - it's that she was killed. This couple is no worse than a couple who aborts their baby because he has a club foot or because they think they have 'enough' children. It's about time we stop talking about why women murder their children in the womb and start talking about the fact that we taxpayers pay for their murder and are complicit in baby killing.
Posted by Mishka Gora, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 11:53:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the well thought out and relevant points, Kenny - your contribution has furthered his debate immensely...

Anti-choice is not the correct term, and you know it. It is a politically loaded expression, used to deny others a right to discuss the issue.

I referred to my "CV" as it is relevant. Both my wife and I are well informed as to the medical status of the fetus, more so than someone not engaged in this field might be.

I am against abortion as it denies the rights of the child - as simple as that. Further, it is yet another example of a post-modernist society heading full speed towards a world where "anything goes".
Posted by rational-debate, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 11:57:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We know how much abortion ideologues really care about choice, Dr Nathanson, the key figure in the institution of the abortion regime a few decades ago, said he deliberately peddled lies that the media uncritically parrotted. The ruling class desperately wanted abortion for power, money, and eugenic/racist reasons (hear Nixon tapes).

Now the children of these 'pro-choice!' pioneers, Tasmanian and Victorian EMILYS LISTers, simply weaponising the law to seek out and destroy pro-human child Australians in their workplace and in their inherited freedoms.

All Australians are economically conscripted into subsidising this fetish of the rich and power hungry. When they declare the truly human with *the* foundational right to life, must have certain qualities present, you'll find the exemplars of these qualities just magically happen to be . . . . our rulers! With same-sex marriage they'll claim to know where babies actually come from, and that mum's and dad's aren't necessary. They'll try and say that the sexes are interchangeable. Along with our babies they mean to do away with the sexes themselves. Beyond any totalitarian's wildest dreams.

Our culture has been so brutalised, attendant with our butchering our babies, over the last 40 years. Consumerism and selling $$ of sex absolutely needs baby killing as back up birth control - the advertising dependent media effortlessly moves us to hatred and scapegoating of Australians who remind us who we are. An age of baby killers. There is no other place to stand. Everyone has to join together to try and preserve the meaning of our humanity. A meaning that is supposed to be a check on Power.

When reality is too confronting for us, we see what our rulers get away with. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/our-american-pravda/

As the babies go, so does every other thing worth preserving under the meaning of society/civilisation.

Bravo to Mr Muehlenberg, a great Australian.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 11:58:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline before you give us the tired old my body my choice routine, understand that your wrong about legality. Abortion is very tightly regulated in this country and only taken out of the criminal code in Victoria of our major populations. And thats only been since 2008, the perverted science of feminists trying to objectify a fetus as a non living parasite makes me want to SPEW
Posted by BillRiz, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 12:00:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm in favour of abortion for sound medical reasons, both physical and psychological, including prepubescent pregnancy, incest and rape! And again, if the choice is limited to either a doctor's clinic or a backyard butcher?
I might vehemently disagree with a woman's choice, but have absolutely no right to deprive her of it!
But particularly, given I can never ever know all of the reasons, or the pain or shame, behind or backing that choice!
It's impossible to know or be in a position to judge!
As clever as I am, I have yet to develop an ability to read minds!
Moreover, laws have to actually be enforceable to be effective. [Meaning, i.e., we can never ever win the so-called war on drugs?]
No ifs buts or maybes!
However, and given things like, ubiquitous condom vending machines, and the morning after pill, acquired over the counter, I don't see abortion as a substitute for contraception.
Nor do I see it as a mechanism for choosing the sex of your baby.
Were the cultures in question advised that all foetuses, start life as female, maybe we could get them to voluntary relinquish this barbaric practise?
Finally, it's not just pregnant women that some doctors/health professionals, are routinely neglecting, or duck-shoving off elsewhere, on so called ethical or religious grounds, but HIV sufferers as well?
Given an almost medieval belief, that this like pregnancy, is almost always, a self inflicted condition?
These so-called medical practitioners, completely disregard, that there is not always an element of choice, in either or any case!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 12:08:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My point, r-d, was that much was made in the media about Dr Hobart taking some sort of professional risk in refusing to refer the couple to an abortion clinic for a sex-selective abortion, when the reality is that he has no obligation to refer anyone to an abortion clinic in contravention of his religious beliefs, but he does have a duty to refer to another doctor who may in turn, provide a referral to an abortion clinic. The initial media reports were misleading.

Sex selection abortions provide a logical dilemma: if it is acceptable for a woman to terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want a child at all, how different is it if she doesn't want a child of a particular gender? Instinctively it seems wrong, and the 60 million plus 'extra' young men in China attest to the adverse results of widespread gender selection of only children, but its hard to argue that someone should be compelled to have a baby they don't want
Posted by Candide, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 1:51:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Society works better when you care about others as much as caring for yourself. Abortion was always going to lead to the selfishness of sex selection, because its origins are about the mum and not the poor baby being killed.
The baby didn't ask for a rape or a one- night-stand. Why should he or she pay the price?
The mum and all who love her have options for saving mum and baby both, psychologically, physically, economically.
Our policies can find the difficult "life" solutions and refuse the easy way out.
Posted by Soccheck, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 2:36:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Bill here that the general public, and indeed prospective clients of abortion clinics, are not told all the facts about what happens. It would be really interesting if someone could do an expose on TV and show Aussies what really happens in the abortion industry or as a result of it. I think a lot of people would think quite differently about this issue.
Posted by Shel W, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 2:37:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Candide,
Thanks for taking the time to explain your point - it is appreciated. I fear we are still on different "sides" of this debate but I appreciate your thoughts.
Posted by rational-debate, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 3:11:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like the author, I too was appalled when I read that newspaper article about sex selection. I cannot understand the hypocrisy of someone who says its perfectly ok for a woman to kill her unborn child for almost any reason (Including simple inconvenience) but then object when a woman wants to kill the child because its the wrong gender. Some people feel just as strongly about the importance of having a child of a particular gender as others do about their career prospects and how an ill timed pregnancy might affect them.
I was even more horrified to read that in Victoria any pregnancy can be terminated up to 24 weeks. A 24 week old foetus is viable outside the womb.
Its time we stopped killing unborn babies and starting valuing all human life.
And before anyone accuses me of being a religious nut, I am an atheist.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 3:26:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@David, I feel for the loss of your aunt and her baby. You comment that had she had access to an abortionist she could have lived...I wonder, had she had access to a Bible, perhaps both she and her precious child would have lived.

We hide behind medical terminology, in this instance, abortion...why not simply call it what it is....Murder...

This is a holocaust like no other and we as a nation are guilty. It has nothing to do with legitimate choice and everything to do with convenience.
Posted by Traceyv, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 3:48:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear traceyv,

You wrote:@David, I feel for the loss of your aunt and her baby. You comment that had she had access to an abortionist she could have lived...I wonder, had she had access to a Bible, perhaps both she and her precious child would have lived.

We hide behind medical terminology, in this instance, abortion...why not simply call it what it is....Murder...

This is a holocaust like no other and we as a nation are guilty. It has nothing to do with legitimate choice and everything to do with convenience."

It was my cousin not my aunt, and I am sure she knew about the Bible. As far as I know there is nothing at all in the Bible that condemns abortion.

You cite the Bible and are apparently too ignorant to know what's in it. The Bible does not condemn abortion but does support the killing of the innocent in many places. The book of Joshua advocates genocide when the Lord commands you to do it. In fact God commands Abraham to kill not a fetus but his own son, and later in the New Testament subjects his own son to torture. I am too decent to follow that ugly book.

Abortion is not a holocaust. The holocaust was killing men, women and children and was inspired by the Christian hatred in the New Testament especially in the Gospel of John. The Nazis quoted the hate sermons of Martin Luther to inspire Christians to mass murder. Hitler said he was doing the Lord's work, and many Germans and others agreed with him.

Murder is a crime defined by law. Abortion is not murder under the Australian criminal code.

You say you feel for the loss of my 'aunt' then follow it by saying abortion is a convenience. You are an ignorant prejudiced fool who has no sympathy for the problems of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 4:58:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re Bill's short CV.
I remember Alan Austin pointed out that Bill has not given a lecture on ethics or anything else at an Australian "theology" school for many a long year.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 5:06:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear traceyv,

I am sorry I called you an ignorant prejudiced fool. What my cousin needed was not a book of ancient superstition but an abortionist.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 6:47:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@david f. It's you and your kind who are the fools, some of history's most spectacular. How do you think grotesque ignorance likes yours could even get a hearing apart from its value to the Molochian Cathedral http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html in making useful idiots. You haven't bothered to understand Christianity, and your rulers love you for it. Our ancestors, the common man knew, because it was likely within living memory that the Cross, was the only thing that prevented spiritual domination (understand that) by the powerful. Fathers loving passed on their knowledge of Jesus, celebrated teh victory that Christmas *means* to their children. God became man so that man can become like God, a meaning hated by all the corrupt and tyrannical.

What you think of as uber sophistication, or fashionable gnu-atheism is simply exactly coincident with doctrines that help the rise of despotic central governments, in bed with huge transnationals - who do whatever they like. The same pattern as all the modern totalitarianisms, all united by the belief that "God was not watching them".

Yes you're free to keep your petty little sins and tin pot bigotries - join the decadent in their waste of all the rights flowing from a Christian anthropology, enjoy the decline in your own way http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/book-review-enjoy-decline.html the father figure you've made into a God and who most certainly doesn't love you, is done with you; elusivewapiti.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/looking-wrong-way.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/10/why-the-heck-is-dhs-buying-more-than-a-billion-bullets-plus-thousands-of-guns-and-mine-resistant-armored-vehicles/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/04/r-r-reno-and-paul-buchheit-would-appear-to-have-something-to-say-to-each-other.html

But don't pretend it is anything more that an impotent bleat. They laugh at you as you attack the God who loves you and who is the only one who would have saved you from slavery. Learn about Him. Pray you fool.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 8:34:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Martin ibn Warraq,

Unfortunately you share the bigotry of people who call people fools when they do not share the superstition they believe in. Fortunately you no longer have the power to burn them at the stake. You can only call them names.

I would be happy to pray if there was anything to pray to.

We live in a civilised society and those who believe in nonsense are free to continue to believe in nonsense. However, they are no longer free to torture and burn those who do not share their nonsense.

Your humanoid god simply is a variant of the humanoid gods that the Greeks, Romans and Norse believed in. Jesus, like Apollo, Zeus and Mithra is the superstition that is in fashion in much of the current world. Like Apollo, Zeus and Mithra and other human creations he will eventually go out of fashion, but some will invent new superstitions and others will follow them. As long as humans exist the gullible will find mythical figures and condemn those who do not share their gullibility.

Such superstition appears necessary for many. Half the planet does not share the Christian superstition. Most of them have their own superstitions. However, except for Islam and Christianity, they mostly don't send out missionaries to spread their superstitions.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 8:59:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza's question: "who are we to force our individual values onto another person?" is a good one. It does, though, seem to fundamentally undermine the argument he/she has just constructed. On the subjective valuing of human life (an excellent observation), it is worth noting that it is, to a large extent, for this very reason that we have a system of laws governing conduct. The central idea is that, since all human life is understood to be of inherently equal value, an individual's subjective inclinations and determinations do not justify any course of action he/she might think best, especially when the welfare of another is in question. Somehow, in the inconsistency that is today's legal code, the unborn child slips through this otherwise carefully-constructed safety net. Logically, there is no other way to see this, and no appeal to allegedly mitigating factors, however passionate, can restore the respectability of this sad and very consequential retreat from both reason and science.

It intrigues me that this gender preference, almost always (it seems) towards the male, fails to recognize the vital role played by the (female) mother in bringing a child of either gender into the world. Little girls (very typically) grow up to be mothers! At any rate, there is no mother that was not once a little girl. So an effective balance (as was observed elsewhere in comments about today's China) is a really good idea, if only on the grounds of 'self-interest'.

Finally: "rant" may be defined as "speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way". There is evidence of this in these pages, indeed, but the original article could hardly be fairly characterized as such.
Posted by stephenphillips, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 9:41:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Regardless of any of the States abortion laws, it is relatively easy for any woman (and her partner) to secure a safe abortion if she wants one.

Women today want abortions for much the same reasons they did years ago... financial, emotional, physical or social reasons. But today, they can have them done safely, instead of backyard butchers, or dying alone in agony from self inflicted abortions.

Not many women take the decision to abort their pregnancy lightly, and in this day and age they have plenty of education re what an abortion involves (sex education, Internet etc).

I agree with choice for women who are pregnant, but I actually hate the thought of abortion as such. I am not sure if I could do it myself.

The only answer to the high abortion rates in Australia is more effective contraception...for both women and men. Maybe free contraception would be cheaper in the long run than the expense of abortions?

All those men who condemn women for aborting unplanned pregnancies should ensure they always wear condoms when having sex, unless they are actually planning for a pregnancy...
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 10:19:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf, Your "Nazi" slur against Christians is a complete fabrication, nowhere in Hitler's writings or his speeches does he use any of the terms "Lord's Work", "Mass Murder", "Mass Killing","Genocide", "Mass Murder of Jews","Killing of Jews" not even in the most biased and heavily edited translations favoured by Anti Racist academics.
Hitler certainly saw his ideas as underpinned by divine certainty, he believed that "the creator of the universe" had created the German Volk and set them in a strugle against worldly evil but he was not a prcaticing Christian nor was he a conservative. Hitler saw himself as a prophet and many people see him as a messianic figure like Napoleon Bonaparte or Julius Caesar but he was definitely not a preacher or a minister.

Maybe you could apologise to Christians and those of German descent for your ill considered remarks?
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 10:21:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still the pro death camp is hiding behind the old " choice and womans rights" rubbish. There are some thing that we just dont have a choice about. I dont have a choice to kill some one just because they dont fit in with my life right now do i? We dont have a choice not to pay our taxes just because we dont want to. You in the pro death camp are promoting the killing of little humans. Call it whatever you like but thats what it is KILLING.

Regards ron mcmillan.
Posted by ronmc, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 11:19:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" Can I suggest that if we really did inform women about everything they need to know about their abortions, that we would have a whole lot less of them? Indeed, that is exactly how we seek to prevent or curtail other ugly activities."

It would be the logical thing to do in this information age, provided that it is not left to abortionists to do so.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 11:53:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't believe this has happened n Australia to a 19week old baby. Plus it sounds like this woman was taken to abort by her husband (Possibly a male dominant, arrogant, stand over man who is tripping over his own male ego to have the first born a son)
Most importantly, I cannot believe this good and decent Doctor is possibly getting into trouble for reporting this?
Plus why should any Dr be made to refer a woman to abort?
Plus why on earth should anyone be killing a 19week old healthy infant?
Where are the feminists here?
This is sickening and this Doctor is a Hero.
If he gets into any trouble, there will be thousands of Aussie' ready to protest BIG TIME...The streets will be full protesting to protect Dr Hobarts stand against a barbaric practise being done here.
You are a good, decent, wonderful man Dr Hobart, and 99% of Aussie's support you 100%.. Just check out all the votes and internet sites.
You are a legend man and I will be there to protest big time if you get into any trouble..Plus we need to protest to stop this sick practise right now...
Posted by SUNNY5, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 2:32:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f:
"We can keep abortions at a minimum by informing sexually active people about contraception."

False, contraception just encourages more abortion. Former abortion clinic directors and workers have admitted publicly that they were well aware that every method of contraception has an average failure rate, but if you convince enough people that it works 'well enough' the overall pregnancy rate increases because everybody thinks pregnancy will never happen to them. And then they clean up by offering abortion at a premium.

Why would these former workers lie?

The simplest way to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. I know many people who have made this choice and kept to it - some for decades.

"If women lose abortion rights and they need an abortion the choice becomes the coathanger, the backyard butcher or suicide."

Mindless fearmongering. (And no mention of the development of antiseptics) Recent examples of Poland and Nicaragua - which wound back abortion laws substantially - give lie to that statement.

Furthermore, David - the Bible has multiple general universal commands about looking after the weak, and not shedding innocent blood, and you do not communicate the big difference between these kinds of general commands and once-off situations inapplicable as prescriptive beyond their context. You do not differentiate between historical accounts and timeless moral rules.

As for your cousin - why have you not considered that she might also have committed suicide if she had access to abortion? Suicide is actually a greater risk for post-abortive women than those who simply find out they are pregnant. Do you care at all about the women who committed suicide after having an abortion?

In summary, you have some terrible arguments and want to also rely on emotional manipulation. But abortion is wrong because it denies basic human rights, something quite objective to view. No-one has the right to take some-one else's life. Way to go supporting death for those in society who need the most protection merely because they are helpless. The fact you spend ages obfuscating the blindingly obvious does not reflect well on you.
Posted by Stephan, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 8:37:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It amazes me that people think that abortion for sex-selection is far worse than abortion for personal reasons. Abortion is always wrong, but the idea that the personal decision that 'a child is not convenient now' is more justifiable than the external pressure in some cultures to have boys over girls (which apparently was a factor in this case) is false.

In their view, abortion for 'personal reasons' is somehow OK, but a panic response to the stigma of having a girl that a culture has embedded (which I do not condone) is substantially worse? Sorry, but if gender selection is always wrong, then I submit abortion because 'the time is not right' is actually worse because it is a decision taken with only personal factors considered and nothing from outside. And over 90% of abortions happen for that reason.

Yet again, comments below this article from those who support abortion proves they refuse to examine their own views and try to dismiss pro-life arguments by misrepresentations or deflections. I don't recall Bill Muehlenberg making a single mention of religion in his article - yet they often argue as if he did - which means they are not dealing with the arguments as presented, they are just looking for emotional smears that appeal to anti-Christian bigotry and hatred.

Oh, and "anti-choice"? Please. The real anti-choicers are the pro-aborts because the unborn don't get the choice to ever do anything. Sheer hypocrisy trying to use such terms.

Also, to Candide, you don't seem to understand that Dr Hobart referring to another doctor would be contravening his beliefs.
Posted by Stephan, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 8:49:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Nation still remembers its 60,000 plus who lost their lives in the First World War nearly one hundred years ago.

Yet the pro-choicers think nothing of the 75,000 plus innocent lives who are sacrificed on the altars of abortion each year
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 10:31:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is illegal is sex selection using IVF in Aus. Aborting a fetus to achieve the same thing is not, as a woman does not need to specify why she is terminating her pregnancy. However, I would guess that given the very small number of terminations at 19 weeks, that this is extremely rare.

What I find irritating are these officious busybodies that want to legislate actions, that will affect millions of mothers to be, on the one in a million chance that someone will do something that ethically questionable, but perfectly legal.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 11:28:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"contraception just encourages more abortion...overall pregnancy rate increases"

I don't believe this, I think your making things up. Please provide peer reviewed data to support this.
Posted by Stezza, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 11:46:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I don't believe this, I think your making things up. Please provide peer reviewed data to support this."

Of course you don't believe it. You would have to change you mind if it were true, and we don't want that, do we?

Why does straightforward logic need a direct reference? It is simple maths!

(Number of people having sex) x (failure rate of contraception) = abortion business.

Increase the former especially and you increase abortion. This is not rocket science.

On the contrary, it is you that needs to explain why those who run abortion businesses would not be motivated to see as many 'unwanted' pregnancies as possible. Because that makes no business sense at all.

But those who used to run the businesses or work there have blown the whistle. Is that not enough? Lookup Abby Johnson, or Carol Everett.

But fwiw you can read this:
"The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion. The contraceptive mentality treats sexual intercourse as though it had little natural connection with babies; it thinks of babies as an "accident" of pregnancy, as an unwelcome intrusion into a sexual relationship, as a burden. The sexual revolution has no fondness — no room for — the connection between sexual intercourse and babies. The sexual revolution simply was not possible until fairly reliable contraceptives were available. Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage."
http://www.goodmorals.org/smith4.htm

and this:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-links-contraception-hike-with-increased-abortions
...which you will note includes citations from pro-abortion people.

and if you only read one link, read this:
http://www.stgermaines.org/index.php/be-informed/interview-with-former-abortion-clinic-owner

I don't think you have even the tiniest argument.
Posted by Stephan, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 1:21:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay of Melbourne,

Apology? German Christians have admitted Christian guilt.

From the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary website:

http://www.kanaan.org/international/israel/israel1.htm

…Considering the atrocities committed against the Jews in the name of Christ throughout much of Christianity's 2000-year history, how can we celebrate the millennium without first expressing our deep sorrow over the past in a spirit of repentance? By our unchristian attitude and behaviour we have brought shame upon the name of Jesus, making it offensive to His own people, the Jews … And so today it is our prayer that Christians all over the world will be inspired to commemorate the millennium with a service of repentance in a spirit of unity, acknowledging our common Christian heritage.

Drawn from Christian and Jewish historical sources in English and German, the following is a brief résumé of the horrific history of Christianity's dealings with the Jews -- dealings which paved the way for the Holocaust.

Sister Pista
Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, Darmstadt / Germany
(an international and interdenominational Christian fellowship)

Go to the site and read the history.

From Mein Kampf.- "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

Hitler wrote ‘Lord’s Work.’ I didn’t claim Hitler used the other terms you mentioned.

Most German churches supported Hitler. The Nazis printed Martin Luther’s Jew-hating diatribes in their newspapers. The German churches supplied chaplains for the Nazi armies. The Vatican signed a concordat with Germany after Hitler came to power.

Few Christians opposed the Nazis. Pastor Niemoller and Franz Jaegerstatter of Austria were two who did. The Nazis did not want to condemn Jaegerstatter since he belonged to no organisation except the Catholic church and was an Aryan. However, he refused to cooperate in any way and was beheaded. Most Christians cooperated. Some enthusiastically.

Read George Mosse’s “The Crisis of German Ideology.” Most German Christians followed Hitler because he embodied their feelings at that time.

Dear Stephan,

It’s ethical and moral for a woman in most cases to have the right to terminate a pregnancy.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 2:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

Then you have no problem with the strong imposing their 'morals' and 'ethics' on the weak, even to the point of killing them. That is a failure to uphold basic human rights without qualification. That is not progress or civilisation, that is barbarism, the law of the jungle.

It is absurd for someone who holds to your backward views on abortion and human rights to think they have any credibility to criticise any other belief system.
Posted by Stephan, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 2:39:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>No-one has the right to take some-one else's life.<<

Bullsh!t. Soldiers have the right to take people's life. Hangmen have the right to take people's life and so does the bloke who gives the lethal injection. I think you and I and David and everybody else has the right to take someone else's life in self-defence but don't take that as legal advice. Police officers have the right to take people's life.

There are many situations where society grants certain people the conditional right to kill. You probably support some of them. I know I do.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 3:43:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’d be interested to know how anti-abortionists suggest we police a ban on abortion. No-one likes the idea of abortion but the deprivation of liberty that would be necessary to stop women having abortions would have much more far-reaching consequences than allowing abortion. Or is it just that anti-abortionists don’t want the state sanctioning abortion and don’t really care at all about the dangers women face with backyard abortions?

Minimising abortions (through education) should always be a goal, but making them illegal would be draconian and only result in more misery with unwanted children born to resentful parents.

Stephan wrote: "(Number of people having sex) x (failure rate of contraception) = abortion business."

Erm… no. It’s more like:

[Incidences of coitus] - ([Incidences of coitus] x [success rate of contraception]) < [Incidences of coitus] - ([success rate of contraception] x 0).

Your assumption - that contraception radically increases the amount of sex being had - is unfounded. Children who are taught abstinence alone are less likely to use contraceptives when they have sex, and studies have shown that virginity pledges merely postpone intercourse by an average of 18 months. Meanwhile, these teens are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex.

The teaching of abstinence has proven itself time-and-time again to be a total failure. The United States (where 30% of sex-education programs teach abstinence only) has higher rates of abortion and teen pregnancy than any other developed nation (http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf), and the more religious a state is in the US, the more this is so (http://www.explonential.com/the-stats-religion-vs-iq-crime-poverty).

But that shouldn’t be a problem in such a Christian nation where, according to the theology, teen pregnancy and abortion are good things since create they souls and send them straight to heaven, without the possibility of being sent to hell for leading a “sinful” life or exercising their scepticism.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 3:43:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yes and of course abortion is about the poor 16 year old who was raped and had to carry the unwanted child. How dishonest the baby killers and supporters have always been. Why would their rotten corrupt nature change now? May God have mercy because they show none to the most innocent.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 4:39:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Stephan,

Apparently you think you have the right to impose your views on a pregnant woman and force her to continue a pregnancy that she doesn’t want to continue. Women in the past have been treated like mere baby-making machines who have no say in the matter. Just impregnate them and let nature take its course.

Male humans are usually stronger than females and can force them to do their will. Wowsers like you have all sorts of specious reasons to keep things that way.

The law of the jungle is you claiming the right of the dominant male to tell a woman that she must go through with a pregnancy that she doesn’t want. You talk of the rights of the fetus as though a part of a woman’s body (which is what a fetus is.) has equal rights with the woman whose body the fetus is inside.

Women have been second class citizens. They have been denied the right to vote, to hold property, to decide who they would marry, to get equal pay for equal work, etc.

Some men have supported them in their drive for those rights. Others like you have found various reasons to deny them those rights. That primitive book of male dominance, the Bible, has supported denial of woman’s rights:

1 Timothy 2

11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13: For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14: and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15: Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

A woman wants to be more than a baby-making machine. Can’t have that.

Care for the fetus? Nonsense. You are an incarnation of those men who would keep women from holding property, getting equal pay, deciding who she would marry and whether she would vote.

Your denial of woman’s rights does not reflect well on you.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 5:08:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F, you are so right in your summation of views like Stephan's and Runners.

I have asked numerous times on this forum over the years, for pro-lifers (mainly middle to old age religious men) to please tell me how they would police a nil-abortion-for-any-reason policy?

None have ever given me an answer... because there is no way they could ever do that than by severely curtailing even the most basic human rights of the pregnant women.
In most cases it would have to involve virtually jailing the offending pregnant women, tying them to beds, force-feeding them etc, to really make SURE they couldn't abort their babies by any number of methods.

Once labour begins, I can't imagine how this would be dealt with in non-compliant women...

There were very good reasons why abortion was legalized in most modern westernized societies, and these will never change, no matter how many men are unhappy with losing 'control' over what 'their' women do.
Like back in the 'good ol' days', when God-fearing men were in control, and women did what they were told.

If some men (and women) aren't happy with the current abortion laws, then encourage men to correctly wear condoms during sex where they don't want children as a result.
That would result in far less unwanted pregnancies if it was done properly, surely?
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 10:32:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Like back in the 'good ol' days', when God-fearing men were in control, and women did what they were told.'

Yea Susie and we see how the Emily's listers who are suppose to be civilised control along with emasculated males. Congratulations on your concern for the unborn.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 1 May 2013 10:38:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I don't believe this, I think your making things up. Please provide peer reviewed data to support this."

Stephan, so do I take your response as a "No"?
Posted by Stezza, Thursday, 2 May 2013 1:54:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

I have more concern for the rights of the born than the rights of the unborn. A woman who is old enough to have a baby should have the right in most cases to decide whether she wants to have that baby. In your worldview a man who accepts that a woman would have rights over her own body is emasculated. Your masculinity shows itself in your right to tell a woman what she should do. There are other ways of being masculine. We men are physically stronger than women. We can also be gentle and caring. We can love our wives, daughters, mothers and girlfriends. We can want them to be all they are capable of being. We can want them to be happy, independent human beings. Your rights of the unborn is phony. Your rights of the unborn is really the right of the born male to tell the born female how she should live and what she should do. I wish you had a concern for the rights of the born even if the born is female. "Shut up and have babies" is your implicit motto for women. If a man doesn't go along with that he is, in your words, emasculated. That's what it comes down with all your sanctimoniousness.

A pregnant woman who wants an abortion has her reasons. Yet those people who harass women at abortion clinics implicitly assume that a woman needs to be controlled. They act as though she hasn't thought it out. I hope none of my female descendents ever has to have an abortion. I hope they are able to avoid getting pregnant if they don't want to be. However, a situation can change for a pregnant woman. If it does and she feels she needs an abortion she should be able to get one in a professional procedure without being harassed.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 2 May 2013 3:09:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F,

Don't talk to me about imposition of views when you are doing the very same thing to the unborn. Even if I was to accept your argument, the worst for women would be them ‘forced’ to carry a baby to term - and everybody continues to live afterwards! But your end result is forced death to the weaker party. Which is worse, David - even by your own logic?

So your point of view is the height of hypocrisy.

btw, thanks for the name-calling, (ie. "wowsers") I accept your conceding of the argument.

As for your biblical interpretations - perhaps you will first deal with my rebuttal of your first point before you change the subject again. You have effectively conceded that point as well! There is an answer to your red herring, but I'm afraid with your track record you will just ignore the answer and then throw up yet another shallow idea of what the bible teaches about women - or whatever else - with no regard for context. And I fail to see what voting rights or any other historical injustice has to do with the subject at hand. You can be for voting and against abortion, you know. Can you stick to the subject just once and not misrepresent your opponents?

btw, funny how you deny rights to females also - are you not aware that half the unborn are female? Again, you refuse to fully examine your own convoluted and unscientific arguments. The fetus is clearly a distinct human being in its own right and where it resides temporarily has no bearing on that fact. Once you add qualifications to basic human rights, it is sorry road to travel because it always ends with the death of millions.

btw, I love all the smears that I am some 'dominant horrible male'. The women in my family would be thoroughly amused by that. All of them are pro-life, and they would be more likely to influence me on the subject than the other way round. I guess they are 'patriarchal' too, huh?
Posted by Stephan, Thursday, 2 May 2013 9:14:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Stephen, Should I take this as a "No"?

But seriously, do you really care about fetuses? Are they more important than embryos? Are embryo's more important than fertilized ovum? Are there differences in implanted vs non-implanted fertilized ovum?

If you really believe that all of these are of equal value, then you should be concerned about all of the extra fertilized ovum that are not implanted due to high likelihood of failure. Don't all of these 'humans' deserve a chance to live?

What I'm really asking, is where do you draw the line about what it is to be human, and when is it ok to kill? Keep in mind that all our cells are "alive" and also "human".
Posted by Stezza, Thursday, 2 May 2013 9:27:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suseonline:
"how they would police a nil-abortion-for-any-reason policy?"

That isn't all that difficult. Primarily, you jail abortionists. There might be a bit more to it, but then there's probably a bit more to jailing bank robbers too.

And anyway, there you are talking about "human rights" whilst you simultaneously advocate for the deprivation of even more fundamental rights to the unborn. Hypocrisy alert!

And Stezza, I provided links for evidence including a very clear testimony from a former clinic operator. If that isn't enough for you, that's your problem, not mine! Anyone can see it doesn't make sense for a business to reduce potential customers. Don't be obtuse. Cheers!
Posted by Stephan, Thursday, 2 May 2013 9:29:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stephan, you are very naive if you think we could just jail all the abortionits, and the problem would go away. Women will try to abort themselves if they can't have a legal abortion.

So it wouldn't matter to you that many women would die from this practice, along with the fetuses ? No of course it wouldn't.

Jailing abortionists wasn't effective back in the good old days either was it?
Hence the new abortion laws.

In any case, thankfully we will never have to worry about this scenario, because abortion will remain legal in our increasingly secular society.
It would be political suicide for any sane Government to wind back the clock to ancient times.
Isn't it time you got over this fact?
Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 2 May 2013 9:51:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stephen, you provided links to websites, not peer reviewed data. Therefore you have no evidence to support your made up claims. Health policy should be based on evidence, not ideology, opinion or BS.

How about you explain exactly what you believe, just so we can judge whether you are fit judge others. I would really like to know how you make your value judgements on living things.
Posted by Stezza, Thursday, 2 May 2013 10:00:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Stephan,

I quoted from the Bible to point out that it is not a reasonable guide for law. Australia is not a theocracy, and laws should be made to serve justice not some archaic religious injunction.

I am not imposing my views on either a woman or a fetus. I am saying that the woman carrying a fetus in most cases has the right to decide whether she wants to carry to term. That is her right not mine or yours.

You would deny her the right to decide. I wouldn’t. I would leave the decision up to her. I would not impose my views.

You fail to see what voting rights or any other historical injustice has to do with the subject at hand. That is your blindness. You are deciding for a woman a matter that is no business of yours to decide. It was an injustice when a pregnant woman regardless of her circumstances had to decide among suicide, a backyard butcher or a DIY abortion if she wanted to terminate a pregnancy. After a struggle she now has the alternative of a medical procedure. A historical injustice has been remedied, and you want to restore the injustice.

A fetus is part of a woman’s body until it is born. I guess you would deny a woman the morning after pill by saying the fertilised egg is a distinct human being in its own right. Tony Abbott as Howard’s Health Minister did. However, he has said that he has changed his views. He recognises now that a fertilised egg is not a distinct human being in its own right.

Would you allow a woman any right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy?

I apologise for calling you a wowser. I was attacking you rather than your views. I did not like it when you said referring to me that my view ‘does not reflect well on you.’ That was a personal attack. Rather than objecting to that attack as I should have done I attacked you. Let’s assume we are both acting in good faith.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 2 May 2013 11:38:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Suseonline,
You ask how a ban on abortion would be policed. I don't think that is the issue. I believe that if a ban on legal abortion were in place, there would be little demand for abortion.
People keep talking about the horrors of back yard abortions. However, society was very different then (1950,s and before). If a woman got pregnant outside of marriage, she was branded a whore by society, ostracized by her family and community. She was likely to be unable to support herself or the child in the absence of a husband. There was a huge incentive for these women to get rid of the child without anyone finding out.
Today women would be unlikely to suffer even mild embarrassment. Around half of all Australian children are born outside of marriage.
Contraception is readily available and I think people would be more careful to use it if they didn't have the option of abortion.
Our birth rate in Australia is well below what it takes to replace our population. We should be valuing, supporting and celebrating every child. Not killing them for the convenience of the mother. I say mother, because fathers do not get a say in whether their unborn child will be killed or not.
In any case, it is not really about the law. It is about society's attitude toward its most vulnerable members. The fact that our society feels it OK, and even a womans right to kill her unborn babies, shows we have a long way to go before we can really call ourselves civilised.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Thursday, 2 May 2013 3:11:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
".....It's all about society's attitude to it's most vulnerable members....."

Your darn tootin' it is, Rhys Jones.

How's this for starters - and this is about actual children and their mothers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-30/housing-fails-to-meet-changing-face-of-homelessness/4659026

Warms the cockles of your heart, doesn't it....in general, we're a consuming competitive society, which doesn't give a particular hoot about vulnerability as a rule.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 2 May 2013 3:35:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to clarify my point above.

It's all very well to say how far we've come and how we should be valuing every child, etc...

It appears we don't even value every child who is actually alive and walking about upon our soil. These kids are being relegated to living on the streets - in these modern, so-called "enlightened" times - in this extremely prosperous country.

So, Rhys, when you say, "...We should be valuing, supporting and celebrating every child..." as an argument against choice, the reality is that we don't value, support or celebrate every child.

We're happy to let some of them live on the streets.....
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 2 May 2013 4:25:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, just because we fail to care properly for some children does not justify killing others. You can't tell me that every child who is aborted would have been destined to live on the streets.
There are many reasons for homelessness and poverty. I don't believe that a lack of abortion is one. I also don't believe that a reduction in abortion would lead to more homelessness.
We should be aiming for a society where no-one is forced to live on the streets and where we value all people, including the unborn. One is not exclusive of the other. I don't see us getting any closer to such a society at present though.
I think the welfare state has destroyed our charitable spirit. People immediately see every problem as being the responsibility of government to fix. Yet government intervention tends to make these problems worse rather than better, such as creating welfare dependence which consigns people to decades of poverty, often crossing generations.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Thursday, 2 May 2013 4:39:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem is, Rhys, that we appear to moving in a retrograde direction.

More women and children on the streets.

It doesn't bode well for a future where all children are valued and supported.

We'd have more chance of women opting to continue pregnancies if we really were sincere in our celebration of all human life.

Show me a truly caring and engaged society (which is what is needed here) and not merely an ideological stance.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 2 May 2013 4:51:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

If the Bible was "not a reasonable guide for law", explain why the Israelites survived as a people for millennia while countless others have come and gone. And what is a "reasonable guide" then? Where does your moral standard come from? What I am pointing out to you is that you don't even know what it teaches because you fail to employ even the most basic rules of scholarship - eg. putting things into context. So when you make claims about it, you are actually wrong because it's hamfisted and clumsy how you quote from it. You've now done it twice.

Stop the ridiculous fearmongering about being a theocracy (has Australia ever been that?), stop ignoring the basic human rights of a some people (and still trying to claim the moral high ground!), and stop trying to claim I am imposing anything on any woman (except in the case of rape a woman has her own free will to enter into sex) when sex is hardwired in humans to lead to pregnancy.

Saying that supporting killing the unborn does not reflect well on you is a fairly straightforward conclusion. Sure, you can consider that a 'personal attack', but in reality I am simply pointing to your backward primitive views that belong in the dustbin of history. Continuing to hold to them doesn't reflect well on you - but you can let them go at any time.

My point about voting stands. The Suffragettes were unified against abortion, did you know that? You are confusing issues and only trying to use smears.

"A fetus is part of a woman’s body until it is born."

Completely unscientific. For that to be true, a woman has a penis when she carries a male child. The little human inside is a distinct human being. "Fertilised egg" is not correct terminology either. Immediately after conception, the first human cell is no longer called an egg because its fundamental nature (having a full set of chromosomes now) has changed.

Your ideas are not grounded in knowledge, that is clear.
Posted by Stephan, Thursday, 2 May 2013 5:36:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza,

"Peer-reviewed data" is your criteria, not mine. I have given you the truthful testimony of several clinic operators, and you don't want to know. Your 'peer-review criteria' is just a deflection.

What you need to do is explain to me how what they say is a lie, not try to hide behind scientific terms. They are not expressing an opinion, they are describing how they ran their business, which directly answers the question - does promoting contraception promote abortion? Clearly it does, since they saw how promoting it to children increased their business. If you want facts and figures, get your hands on their business profit statements at the end of each month! You think a study would be the ultimate evidence? Actually, I think the fact of cold hard cash flowing is about as tangible and strong as it gets. Money talks and in this case, you are deciding not to listen, even though the message is clear.

You are simply being obtuse while trying to hijack the language of objective investigation. But you don't really care about truth, only appearing like you are interested in truth. If I pointed to a study you would likely reject it anyway. But what matter most is when people actually employ the connection between contraception and abortion and make money. That has happened over and over again. That is a fact you cannot just dismiss, but you are trying to deflect attention away from.

So you need to answer this before anything else: why would abortion business owners actively promote something (contraception) you claim would actually reduce their business? (abortion) Makes no sense - unless - as former operators testify - it actually did not reduce abortion numbers at all, quite the contrary.

Poirot,

"Show me a truly caring and engaged society (which is what is needed here) and not merely an ideological stance."

...so says the person who wants to justify killing children as civilised, as if that wasn't an 'ideology' in itself. Right, that makes sense! Wow.
Posted by Stephan, Thursday, 2 May 2013 5:48:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Settle down, Stephan.

And don't put words in my mouth.

Nowhere did I attempt to justify anything, mate.

I was addressing Rhys Jones and his view on the subject of what we as a society "should" be doing to support and value all children...and the fact that we appear to be moving backwards in our support for vulnerable women and children.

My point being, and I agree with him here, that any women we might dissuade from abortion can not take it for granted to be embraced by society while bringing up her child.

You'll get your message across much better if you lower your hackles and cease calling people like me "...the person who wants to justify killing children..."

Can't you debate with resorting to stunts like that?
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 2 May 2013 6:32:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Stephan,

The fact is that abortion is legal in Australia, and the law does not consider a fetus the equal of a person that has been born. It has been a struggle to get legal abortion, and I think it is for the best. I just wish it had come earlier so my cousin could have benefited from it. However, it is available for my descendants.

Abortion is killing a fetus. A fetus is not a child. I think you are aware of that, but you insist on referring to it as killing children. If you can get enough people to agree with you then we will return to a past which I don't think was as good as it is now with respect to abortion.

You wrote: "Stop the ridiculous fearmongering about being a theocracy." Apparently you didn't even read what I wrote. Let me refrest your memory. I wrote: "I quoted from the Bible to point out that it is not a reasonable guide for law. Australia is not a theocracy, and laws should be made to serve justice not some archaic religious injunction."

Get that. I wrote that Australia is not a theocracy. Since you really don't seem to care what I write there doesn't much point in continuing.

However, I think you have your views in good faith which is something you want to deny me.

I think we are far more civilised at this time in respect to having legal abortion, and those who make our laws apparently agree with that or it wouldn't be legal.

I also think the current laws are fair in that they regard a woman as more than a baby-making machine. We will not agree so I guess that is that.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 2 May 2013 7:19:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So you need to answer this before anything else: why would abortion business owners actively promote something (contraception) you claim would actually reduce their business? (abortion) Makes no sense - unless - as former operators testify - it actually did not reduce abortion numbers at all, quite the contrary."

Stephen,

Using this logic, heart surgeons suggesting their patient eating less cholesterol must mean that cholesterol is good for the heart, and a mechanic telling a customer to make sure they put oil in their engine means that oil is bad for the engine. See you logic does not make sense. The thing about "peer-reviewed" science is that it is not based on anecdotes, it requires unbiased reasoning, data and statistics. This is why what you say is BS.
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 3 May 2013 6:11:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, legal is not necessarily moral - that is apparent even from your own argument since you admit that it once was not legal, and could therefore be so again. So what are you trying to say? Never mind the irony of including this statement, "it is available for my descendants" - those aborted excluded of course.

"A fetus is not a child."

Science says otherwise. With half the chromosomes from the father and half from the mother, a child is exactly what it is. Even as an adult now, I am a child to my parents, so it is not even a word limited to when you have a single digit age or thereabouts. Various dictionaries differ with you too - one definition being "a human fetus.", another mentions pregnancy as also being called 'with child'.

Furthermore, your point about theocracy is a well known smear that you are now trying to obfuscate. Your argument assumes opposition to abortion equals theocracy. But given that Australia has never been (not just "is not" as you argue) that, bringing up the idea is just fearmongering. Maybe you will stand up for what you assumed in your argument now instead of trying to weasel out of it.

There is nothing civilised about abortion. It is on par with pagan child sacrifice practices that long precede the Roman empire. I find it funny when pro-aborts wish to smear pro-lifers in respect of the 1950s or something like that, when they actually hold to an idea that regresses society to before the dark ages by millennia!

I don't know a single prolifer who thinks of women as a "baby-making machine". So - I challenge you to find me just one prolife organisation that characterises women this way and - in practice - is 100% run by men and refuses to allow women do anything other than have children. Because that is what you are saying. Could it be that you have a pathological need to misrepresent your opponent’s arguments and motivations because that is so much easier that actually facing up to the truth?
Posted by Stephan, Friday, 3 May 2013 9:41:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza, a balance sheet is quite unbiased and is effectively peer-reviewed by the fact of cold hard cash. A thousand dollars is always a thousand dollars, whereas a study might be claimed to have all kinds of flaws. Numbers do not lie and cannot be fudged because operators cannot just print their own money. If promoting contraception increases abortion business, and multiple operators testify to this, you have no argument.

It is clear you are avoiding the evidence presented because it does not suit your baby-killing ideology. The idea contraception reduces abortion is the real lie and if anything is biased it is you!
Posted by Stephan, Friday, 3 May 2013 9:44:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Stephan,

You are correct. Moral and legal are not the same thing. What is legal is defined by legislation. What is moral is defined by society and the individual. There is no question that abortion is legal in the country we live in. Morality is a more subjective matter. My moral sense tells me that abortion is moral under most circumstances, and a pregnant woman should have the right to decide for herself under most circumstances whether she wants to have an abortion. You would deny her that right as you apparently think abortion is immoral. Since neither you nor I have the right to decide what is moral for other people we will continue to maintain our differing views on the morality of abortion.

We differ on what is moral. However, what is permitted without legal penalty in a particular society is determined by legality not morality. I am satisfied that legal abortion is consistent with what I think is moral. You have the right to try to change the law so it is more consistent with your views.
Posted by david f, Friday, 3 May 2013 10:31:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f, you state "What is moral is defined by society and the individual."
I am not sure this is so. By that definition, what the Nazi's did to the Jews was moral. Australia historic treatment of Aboriginies was moral and Indonesian treatment of cattle is also moral.
I myself believe that moral right and wrong is not simply about personal preference, nor is it about imaginary gods and ancient texts, but must be based on something deeper.
Most people would agree it is immoral to kill humans (unless in self defence). Pro-choicers usually claim that the foetus is not human and use all manner of tricky arguments to support this claim. Having examined many of these arguments, I see them more as an attempt to justify abortion rather than an effort to see what is really right or wrong.
The moral ill you commit when you kill the foetus is taking away its opportunity to live out the rest of its life. Just as if you kill a new born baby or an adult human you take away their potential to live out their life. This is what is immoral. The size of the bunch of cells is irrelevant.
There may be situations where it is justifiable to kill the unborn, just as there are situations where its justifiable to kill children or adults. However, in our society these justifications would be few and far between.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Friday, 3 May 2013 12:28:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It is clear you are avoiding the evidence presented because it does not suit your baby-killing ideology"

At no point did I promote abortion, I am simply disagreeing with your logic and refuting your flawed reasoning. There is no right or wrong answer on when we value a human life enough to prevent it's death. It seems you are both against contraception, and believe that human life is highly valuable at conception. If this is the case, then why are you bothering about human-induced abortion? Don't you know that for every human-induced abortion there are hundred, if not thousands of humans that die, either before or after birth? If you really cared you would be doing something about this. So do you really care or are you just a hypocrite?
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 3 May 2013 12:51:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhys Jones,

What the Nazis did to the Jews was moral in their terms. I don't agree with that morality, but the most of the German churches in following Hitler did.

One philosophical discussion is based on whether there can be an objective morality. I think that morality is subjective and some other people think there can be an objective morality.

In the Bible God commands the Hebrews to commit genocide.

Joshua 8:18 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Stretch out the spear that is in thy hand toward Ai; for I will give it into thine hand. And Joshua stretched out the spear that he had in his hand toward the city. ... 8:24 And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. 8:25 And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. 8:26 For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.

The Bible has many ugly passages such as the above. Joshua was not better than Hitler. Yet many people follow the Bible as a moral guide. IMHO the Bible isn't worth a pail of warm spit when it comes to morality. Morality is subjective, and the God of the Bible can be evil.
Posted by david f, Friday, 3 May 2013 1:39:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza: 'If this is the case, then why are you bothering about human-induced abortion?'

There is a long list of natural reasons why ova fail to implant and pregnancies miscarry etc. The reasons would be pretty hard to predict and manage, so we have to accept them.

For the few that actually implant and get going, it seems to me a great pity that the choices of those already on the 'outside' should be added to that list.
Posted by hugoagogo, Saturday, 4 May 2013 10:09:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Abortion & Morality

.

Science has no universally accepted clear-cut definition of when life begins.

Popular culture has it that life begins at birth.

The law defines the conditions of abortion.

The principal religions oppose abortion.

In some countries the law and religious dogma coincide but in many they differ.

Pregnancy results from the relationship of a man and a woman.

Only the woman becomes pregnant. Not the man.

The consequences of abortion affect the woman. Not necessarily the man.

Legislation authorising the termination of pregnancy, under certain conditions, re-establishes the balance of the scales of justice between the man and the woman with regard to the law.

No such mechanism exists in religion. The scales of "Devine justice" remain in net imbalance at the distinct disadvantage of the woman.

In addition, both the woman and the man, as well as society as a whole, must compose, each, with her/his/its particular sense of morality and/or code of ethics.

This poses a problem for people who want their world to be black and white and their morals to be absolute.

As for the rest of us, we do the best we can under the circumstances to respect our ideals of humanity and personal responsibility.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 4 May 2013 10:25:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very well put Banjo.
Abortion should be a very last resort, but it should remain a woman's choice.

It is legally a woman's choice in Australia, and will remain so.
Religion, and religious men, no longer dominates our society......thank God.
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 4 May 2013 12:00:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The arguments people have here supporting abortion amazes me! How sellfish and ignorant some Australians have become!
I don't see any arguments here posted by the babies being aborted?

When do we get to hear the choice and voice of the unborn baby?

Some people are saying here, what is best for the mother, best for the father, best for the Country & even what they is best for the BABY?
Wow that is absolute rott!

We see what is happening in India where there is no one child policy. Where they are not only killing infants in the womb, but killing them after their born also!! Just to have a boy as their first born!! Now their is a crisis with over 160million more boys than girls.

The stats of boys being born compared to girls here, shows THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING HERE!

Can't we learn by other human mistakes so blatently put in front of us?

What ever other arguments for abortion some people have, they need to face squarely what is happening here. Not argue out insanity!! We need to do everything possible to immediately stop sex selection abortion here no matter what. Killing infants at 19 weeks is shocking for any reason. Disabled people are beautiful and they have a right to life and they actually are loved family members when they are born.

I thank people like Dr Mark Hobart for standing up, and I think its sickening that anyone with any decency at all could ever possibly cirisice him.

Thankyou Bill for writing this excellently put article and bringing this debate to light further.
You have written this with good clear detail and I am so thankfull that such decent Australian Men are standing up so strong..
Posted by SUNNY5, Sunday, 5 May 2013 3:42:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SUNNY5 asked: When do we get to hear the choice and voice of the unborn baby?

The answer is never:

An unborn baby is not a baby. A baby is a baby when it is born.

You are referring to a fetus and do not want to call it what it is.

A fetus cannot cry or make any noises because it is inside a pregnant woman.

A fetus cannot make choices, but a pregnant woman can. One of the choices she can make is to terminate her pregnancy.

There are many legitimate reasons for a pregnant woman to want to terminate her pregnancy. Those who would deny her that right will not have to contend with the consequences of that denial. They will not give birth to a ninth child, a deformed child or an unwanted child. They will not have to go through the agony of childbirth to give a baby away or endure any of the other consequences that abortion avoids. If abortion is made illegal fetuses will still not be able to make choices or speak, but a pregnant woman will no longer have the choice of a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. Her choice and her voice will have been silenced.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 5 May 2013 6:12:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Suseonline,

.

"Religion, and religious men, no longer dominate our society......thank God."

But they still try ...

.

On the outer Barcoo where the churches are few
And men of religion are scanty,
On a road never cross 'cept by folk that are lost,
One Michael Magee had a shanty,

Now this Mike was the dad of a ten year old lad,
Plump, healthy, and stoutly conditioned;
He was strong as the best, but poor Mike had no rest,
For the youngster had never been christened.

And his wife used to cry, 'If the darlin' should die
Saint Peter would not recognize him.'
But by luck he survived till a preacher arrived,
Who agreed straightaway to baptise him.

Now the artful young rogue, while they held their colloque,
With his ear to the keyhole was listenin',
And he muttered in fright, while his features turned white,
'What the divil and all is this christenin'?'

He was none of your dolts, he had seen them brand colts,
And it seemed to his small understanding,
If the man in the frock mùade him one of the flock,
*It must mean something very like branding.

So away with a rush he set off for the bush,
While the tears in his eyelids they glistened -
"'Tis outrageous,' says he, 'to brand youngsters like me,
I'll be dashed if I'll stop to be christened!'

Like a young native dog he ran into a log,
And his father with language uncivil,
Never heeding the 'praste' cried aloud in his haste,
'Come out and be christened, you divil!'

But he lay there as snug as a bug in a rug,
And his parents in vain might reprove him,
Till his reverence spoke (he was fond of a joke)
'I've a notion,' says he, 'that'll move him.'

'Poke a stick up the log, give the spalpeen a prog;
Poke him aisy - don't hurt him or maim him,
'Tis not long that he'll stand, I've the water at hand,
As he rushes out this end I'll name him.

(Continued) ...

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 5 May 2013 6:14:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Continued) ...

.

'Here he comes, and for shame! ye've forgotten the name -
Is it Patsy or Michael or Dinnis?'
Here the youngster ran out, and the priest gave a shout -
'Take your chance, anyhow, wid 'Maginnis'!'

As the howling young cub ran away to the scrub
Where he knew that pursuit would be risky,
The priest, as he fled, flung a flask at his head
That was labelled 'MAGINNIS'S WHISKY'!

And Maginnis Magee has been made a J.P.,
And the one thing he hates more than sin is
To be asked by the folk, who have heard of the joke,
How he came to be christened 'Maginnis'!

.

"A Bush Christening"

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 5 May 2013 6:17:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Gender selection by In vitro fertilisation (IVF)

.

It seems that baby sex-selection tours are becoming increasingly popular with Australian couples using IVF.

Perhaps this could be a viable alternative to gender selection by termination of pregnancy:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/baby-sex-selection-tours-increasingly-popular-with-australian-couples-using-ivf/story-e6frg6n6-1226635204544

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 5 May 2013 6:57:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol Banjo Paterson, I liked the poem!

Sunny5, what are you on about?
I have no problem with people who are against abortion, because I agree it should happen much less than it does in our society.

However, when you make a claim like this one ..."The stats of boys being born compared to girls here, shows THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING HERE! ", I would like to see the stats you speak of?

Abortions at 19 weeks are extremely rare, and will only ever happen where there is an extreme foetal disability, or where the mother's life is in danger.
I know this fact because I am a midwife.

You talk of how aborting disabled babies is awful, but there are many really awful conditions where babies that are left to go to term and through labour, can suffer awfully. It is truly dreadful to watch parents go though the trauma of birth, only to deliver a child that dies shortly before or after birth.

It is cruel for all concerned, and if they chose to abort at an earlier stage then it is nobody else's business than them and their doctor.

And it is legal, so ...move on.
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 5 May 2013 12:22:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy