The Forum > Article Comments > Addressing the issues on abortion > Comments
Addressing the issues on abortion : Comments
By Amanda Fairweather, published 13/10/2005Amanda Fairweather argues it is time to have a serious debate on abortion.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 22
- 23
- 24
-
- All
Posted by maracas, Thursday, 13 October 2005 11:42:34 PM
| |
Sometimes, when someone is deeply asleep, they are'nt aware that they're human. They are'nt aware of anything at all for that matter.
That must be the acceptible time to kill them- SORRY I should'nt be so dramatic- it would be the acceptible time to terminate the Earth-usage. What a silly argument- the fact is, no you can't kill them because they're alive. Is a foetus alive? Only if it is self-moving When the human egg is fertalised by the sperm, the result is a self-moving organism with human DNA. Posted by Jose, Friday, 14 October 2005 7:33:55 AM
| |
While I agree that this is a good article, I disagree with Fairweather's ultimate assertion that we need to interminably debate the rights and wrongs of abortion. As others have implied, those who wish to reignite the debate about abortion are almost invariably those who wish to restrict legal access to abortion, or prohibit abortions altogether, typically on religious grounds.
As Fairweather says, the point at which a foetus can be considered to be a 'human life' will always be subject to interpretation, regardless of objective scientific criteria by which such a status might be conferred. If one adds this perspective to the overwhelming approval by the Australian electorate, in successive Australian Electoral Studies, of legal access to abortion, then it seems to most of us to be a waste of time and energy to have to perpetually pander to the demands for justification from the 'pro-life' mob. Indeed, the only time it becomes an issue is when some 'pro-lifer' or another wants to turn back the clock under some pretext in the guise of a 'debate', which then becomes a soapbox - typically for disaffected men and/or religious extremists. It seems to me that there will always be situations where women find themselves pregnant, but unable or unwilling to bear a child. Like it or not, the right to safe and legal abortions for women in that unfortunate situation was won decades ago, yet there are quite powerful forces at work in our society that want to remove that hard-won right from women. That is the only reason I engage in such a pointless debate. Unless we resist them, creeps like Tony Abbott will remove that right by underhand means, like classifying abortions as 'elective surgery'. To demand an interminable moral debate is either naive or disingenuous - in Fairweather's case one would tend to look at her youth and attribute the former motive, but since she is so obviously intelligent it's quite possible that the latter is the case. Posted by mahatma duck, Friday, 14 October 2005 8:45:32 AM
| |
Timkins
Your posts here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=188 indicate that you have a problem with women writers Posted by rossco, Friday, 14 October 2005 11:51:35 AM
| |
Newsroo, you may have misunderstood what I was suggesting (or I may be misunderstanding your post). I am personally undecided about the right/wrong issue of abortion and am trying to stay out of that particular part of the debate.
We currently have a status quo where abortions are allowed in practice even if that is not the way the law is generally framed. My comments about the things which could and should be determined up front in the context of abortions being allowed and the decision about the abortion being one made between the mother and her doctor. Like it or not that is what we have in Australia. The things the mother needs to consider include - Am I willing to carry this child to term (and through the subsequent birth)? - Am I willing to have an abortion? - Am I willing to be a parent to this child? If not am I willing to give it up for adoption? - Am I willing to accept the financial and lifestyle consequences of having a child? - Is the father willing to accept the financial and lifestyle consequences of having a child? - What other support can I rely on? I'll be missing some items, not intended to be exhaustive. If we accept that it is legitimate for the mother to opt out of the foreseeable consequences of poorly or unprotected protected sex then it is fair to suggest that the father also should have that opportunity as far is practical. At this point in time mothers can effectively opt out prior to birth or following birth (by giving the child up for adoption) and yet the fathers have no such options. In some cases fathers have not found out about the existance of their child until years after the childs birth when they are hit with a large bill for child support (or demands that they take part in paternity testing). Nothing fair about that. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Friday, 14 October 2005 12:45:10 PM
| |
Sorry - yes I kind of did misunderstand you.
I thought you were saying that if the father was willing to raise the child, the mother must carry it whether she wants it or not. (in short). I guess unless you're talking about forced pg, it's pretty hard for the mans opinion to count for anything in the situation because if he wanted it and she didn't there's nothing can really be done. I don't think there are many women around saying "Sure! You can grow your baby in here for 9 mths!" and the ones that do (surrogate mothers) charge like a wounded bull. Perhaps this is why some daddies don't know they (are or were) daddies - if she didn't want the child then asking him if he does (and let's say he does...) only confuses the issue. Yes there is something niggly there about the male role in the decision to have/not have the baby. Technically I do think his involvement should be 50/50 but I can't help coming back to just how horrible pg is (not just during - the aftermath as well)and how no-one should have to do that unless they have chosen to themselves. On the other side of it (she's chosen to have a baby he didn't want) then I do concede if he is willing to sign away ANY contact, he shouldn't have to pay. That would be a good time for society to step in. Posted by Newsroo, Friday, 14 October 2005 3:38:23 PM
|
How do you get a Jew to see a Palestinian as a human being ?
You cant whilst the USA continues to support the occupation and refuses to rein in the excesses of Ariel Sharon