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 > Law protects women by guarding innocent unborn > Comments

Law protects women by guarding innocent unborn : Comments

By Julie Borger, published 27/2/2017

More abortions would hurt more women. With every abortion, the toll is one dead, one wounded.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Isn't it ironic that all the people who support abortion have already been born?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 27 February 2017 7:31:38 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
Unenforceable laws protect/guard nobody, least of all the innocent unborn!

Moreover, more harm is done by poverty, absolutely rife in places that still outlaw clinical abortions!

Thus we see desperate women, all too often the victims of rape and or incest or both? Being left with no other for them remedy, than backyard butchers!

Many many more paying the ultimate price or being permanently harmed or rendered infertile. And a clear cut case of the (self appointed do gooders,) doing more harm than good!

And only possible because of manifestly misguided activists like the Author assuming self declared Authority only dispensable by a just all knowing God!

When men can carry babies placed inside their abdominal cavity minus their consent ever (technically possible) and be forced to go full term then support and succour the result for up to and even beyond eighteen years on a part time Janitors salary. Maybe this clap trap crap will stop?

Or when these folk (fat cats, the over privileged) start focusing exclusively on their own shortcoming or failings, as opposed to just ignoring them and assisted in that endevour as self appointed (well I never and how dare you) busybody moral judges for everyone else but themselves?

It can no longer be a case of do what I say and ignore what I do or how I do it!

[And the usual Sunday sermon will be held on Saturday instead of Monday. The community pool will be available for exclusive nude bathing, Tuesday nights for the Ladies and Thursday nights for men; and for the Village Pastor and myself, any night we choose!]

Get a life, self indulgent pous parsimonious moralizing busybody, one of your own! You just don't have a right to own someone else's or decide how they, as sound of mind, fully informed Adults, conduct it!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 27 February 2017 9:39:06 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
Well said Julie...of course this move to legalise the killing of unborn babies is a con ..and part of an ongoing strategy devised by a clique of ideologues who purport to speak for all women...your most telling words are that abortion "isn't good enough for women" ..that's what women other than this "clique" believe....just witness the funding of overseas abortions by our current Government ..headed by a man with a "Harbourside Mansion" and a "professional career" woman as a Foreign Minister approving this funding! What a look for the "Lucky Country" ...paying to kill the babies of women in "Less Lucky Countries"! But I digress...don't go down the path of Victoria, Julie, and its State sanctioned killing of unborn children ..up to birth ...and the stifling of any contrary opinion...that's what upsets this clique...the fact that there are people who disagree with them, the fact that people love the innocent unborn child and think too highly of mothers to stand by while they feel there is no alternative in their lives other than to have their unborn children killed. Yesterday I read of QLD MP Jackie Trad's Facebook comments on "a woman's right to choose"(Oh, that this was so...some "choice"...so many are "coerced" into abortions by their caddish boyfriends, parents, society-in-general) and her comments to reporters " I would have thought the Archbishop (Coleridge) had more important things on his mind to focus on, like the inquiry into institutional abuse and the findings that are coming out of the that inquiry, than what is before the Queensland parliament " Nice try Jackie..."faithful" Catholic that you are! So because 7% of Catholic clergy according to the Inquiry , are "alleged" to have sexually abused children, it is alright for parliamentarians like yourself to sanction the killing of the most innocent of all children, unborn babies ? I feel sorry for Queenslanders that they have to endure the illogicality of parliamentarians like you!
Posted by Denny, Monday, 27 February 2017 10:18:48 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 is a really, really nasty business that all of us should be ashamed of.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 27 February 2017 10:24:38 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
Alan your worn out half lies are 50 years out of date. A new breed of women who have not have their consciences destroyed by emily's list and other abhorrent groups are on the rise. Your hatred of life is quite astounding.
Posted by runner, Monday, 27 February 2017 10:32:08 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
My hatred of life runner, what on earth are you rabbiting (mendacious disingenuous morbidity) on about?

Any considered in depth read and comprehension of what I've actually written would tell anybody, except the verbalizing abusive moribund, exactly the opposite!

Caps that fit?

You must have concluded that I am a powerfully persuasive writer to just go the abusive attack, ditto all your abusive friends! Thanks for the backhanded compliment one and all!

And sure to encourage others to read and actually comprehend exactly what I have actually written; as opposed to just accepting your wildly inaccurate verbal!

Thanks for the assistance and for effectively making my inherently indisputable case for me!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 27 February 2017 10:53:38 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
I'm pretty confident that any argument that claims to be about "protecting women" in western society is generally an excuse to trample on someone's autonomy. Quite often the women being "protected". Generally it seems to be an argument that women (or other women if the author is female) are not adult enough to make their own decisions and live with the consequences.

I think that there is a significant social negative to having laws in place that are never enforced. It sends a message that law is not something that we take seriously, that it's OK to ignore those you disagree with or for lawmakers that it's OK to pass laws that won't be enforced. The author makes a similar point when she says in regard to one of the proposed changes "There is no penalty. A law without consequences is no law at all."

So if as she claims "no woman has ever been jailed for or even convicted of an illegal abortion in the 118 years the law has been in place." then it would seem that this is no law. On the other hand it just needs a shift in the winds of power and that uneasy social truce could turn out really badly for some.

The laws should be gone, or re-written to suit what the government actually intends to allow/prevent.

They should not sit there as an unknown hanging over the heads of people with the risk that an unfortunate combination of government and judiciary choosing to have the letter of the law enforced (and whatever records of electronic communications the government has access making it a risk looking back in time not just forward).

I don't personally like abortion and I've found the arguments of some staunchly pro-womens choice advocates disgusting when they reject any concept of financial choice for the male party involved but my personal likes and dislikes and the inconsistencies don't alter the basic issues.

The law should reflect what the government intends to enforce, no more and no less.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 27 February 2017 11:28:05 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
Any woman with natural instincts will tell you that an unborn child is considered a living being from the moment it's existence is known.
Mothers talk to this unborn child, sing to it, poke and prod it to make it move, choose names and dream of what the child will look like and what sort of person it will become.
Fathers do the same things.
Even unwanted babies are considered a live entity.
To say that the casual destruction of this unborn life is not murder is nothing more than semantics.
Yes, there are circumstances that require abortion. In cases of rape, or incest or the health of the mother it is sometimes necessary to commit this murder because that is considered the best outcome for the pregnancy.
To those who argue that we can't impose conditions on a woman's control of her own body, well, the child's body is also involved and the rights of the father as well.
In a healthy woman pregnancy is not a life threatening condition, it's a part of normal female health and the vast majority of women could carry an unwanted child to term then put it up for adoption with no adverse physical effects.
And quite frankly, if women are so obsessed with the control of their own body they should ensure they control it to avoid getting pregnant in the first place
Posted by Big Nana, Monday, 27 February 2017 11:46:43 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
I remain very conflicted where abortion on demand is concerned, and there is no surprise that I largely agree with the words of the two posters before me, even though they arrive at different conclusions.

It is not possible to reach middle age without knowing at least obliquely of a woman who has been obliged by circumstances beyond her control to give up her child or have a termination. That is despite their avowed best compliance with contraception. Over years, even the most diligent can miss a pill, or accidents happen.

As a man I will never know what children I may have fathered, or abortions caused, through unfairly putting the onus for contraception on the woman. I wish for a male Pill and even more so now that I look back.

I am particularly concerned about the lack of will of government to collect statistics to enable independent, scientific study of the high number of terminations in Australia. There is suspicion at least that economic conditions are contributing to a far higher number of terminations affecting women and couples of prime childbearing and child-raising age.

It is worth reminding that it was social, but very largely economic conditions (poor personal and family financial situation and lack of support), that resulted in so many women having to give up their children for adoption post WW2 and later. Could the very same causes be leading to a higher than forecast number of terminations affecting the under-employed and over-taxed 20-30 year olds?

Does social policy contribute, if so, how?

How to examine where data is not being kept?
Posted by leoj, Monday, 27 February 2017 12:14:10 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
Big Nana, you need to be corrected. It is a fact that even without intervention, one in every four conceptions will result in a spontaneous abortion. That is just natures way of preventing children with some defect being born, although even then there are some who slip through the cracks.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 27 February 2017 1:04:00 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
There is absolutely no difference between a natural miscarriage and an abortion? On this premise you could also claim that because so many children die in car accidents, there is absolutely no difference between a child dying in an accident and intentionally arranging for your child to be killed.
It is in the character of each new obsessive ideology which sweeps the world that sooner or later its dogmas founder in absurd irony.
How ironic that extreme ideological feminists have been allowed to foster the untruth that a mother’s son or daughter being nurtured and protected in her womb is not yet a human being with human rights? They have reinvented the old pre-school fiction that a Stork (named ‘A Woman’s Choice’) brings the baby whose existence is instantaneously affirmed only at the moment of birth.
The irony is that this fiction continues to be propagated at a time in history where we have never had so much detailed scientifically verifiable knowledge of the humanity of each child taken to the abortionist to be “terminated”. A mother is able as never before to see her child through an ultrasound window to the womb. Her child is already here; she feels and sees a lively and purposeful presence; she can hear a heartbeat that is not her own.
Ideological distortion of science and reason to dehumanize the most vulnerable human beings before claiming to have a right to exterminate them is very nasty, very old ploy used to devastating effect by other vicious ideologies last century.
Posted by RitaJ, Monday, 27 February 2017 3:29:39 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
David, how can you possibly compare a spontaneous abortion with a medical abortion?
Miscarriages usually occur because of abnormalities in the foetus, a miscarriage is natures ways of preventing the birth of a severely defective child.
A medical abortion is the destruction of a normal, healthy foetus, one that would grow into a normal, healthy child.
There is no comparison!
Posted by Big Nana, Monday, 27 February 2017 5:28:46 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 wasn't comparing them at all. I was just stating a fact without even offering an opinion about the medically terminated pregnancy question. I don't wish to offer an opinion.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 27 February 2017 9:55:23 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
At some point between conception and birth the life growing inside the womb becomes human. Prior to that point the killing of that life, while regrettable, cannot be illegal. After that point, killing a human life is murder.

The challenge for society is to decide and 'agree' upon what that point is. Some will say its at the point of conception. Some will say its much later.

Personally I'd set the point at 20 weeks. Any such demarcation is clearly subjective and and to some degree arbitrary. But legally a demarcation point must be set. Comparing great things to small, its clearly arbitrary to say driving at 60 kph is fine but 61 not. But a line has to be drawn.

Once its determined that the life is human,that its in a womb is immaterial.

So my response is that abortion to 20 weeks ought to be easily available, but after that time, utterly illegal.

Pick another cut-off point if you like but the principle remains the same.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 28 February 2017 11:27:21 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 Mhaze,

«Pick another cut-off point if you like but the principle remains the same.»

In that case, I would pick the cut-off point at around 1 or 2 years after birth, because before that, the baby tends to be less developed (physically, emotionally, mentally) than adult animals. So long as it is legal to euthanase animals or to kill them for meat, it should just the same be legal (though not moral) to euthanase babies which are less-developed.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 28 February 2017 12:01:30 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
mhaze,

The unborn child is human from the point of conception. Its DNA is proof of that. That’s not the issue. The most fundamental issue is one of bodily autonomy.

No one has the right to use someone else’s body for their survival without that person’s consent. This is a right that we afford dead people, yet anti-abortionists seem to think that a pregnant woman is not entitled to it; just as they believe that an unborn human child, so meek and mild, is entitled to more rights than a child who has been born. For a child who has been born is not even entitled to use someone else’s body (including their own mother’s) without their consent.

That being said, a better way to determine the cutoff point would be to set it at around 20 weeks (which is the current cutoff point, funnily enough) because the unborn human child, filled with so much potential, is viable outside the womb at that age.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 28 February 2017 1:27:10 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
Bringing a child into the world is often a great joy, however, it is also a huge life long responsibility, but for some an unplanned pregnancy is a life destroying disaster that will bring mostly misery. While some claim that a woman can give up her child, this is a dishonest argument, as women are hard coded to bond to their offspring.

The argument falls to the right of a woman over her body. The rights of an unborn child cannot override these, no more than the rights of a husband can override the rights of his wife.

As for the angst it causes women, that is vastly over exaggerated. I personally know 2 women that have had careers and families that would not have been possible had they been forced as teenagers to become mothers. As to their state of mind, they give it no more thought.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 1 March 2017 3:29:27 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
Gosh, what a topsy-turvy world we'd live in if we trusted doctors to have their patients best interests at heart and only be concerned with providing the best medical care possible. But obviously they're all greedy psychopaths in blood-spattered aprons, only interested in squeezing money from their victims and Medicare by butchering as many babies as they possibly can.

//A medical abortion is the destruction of a normal, healthy foetus, one that would grow into a normal, healthy child.//

Sometimes. But not all foeti with abnormalities spontaneously abort. Sometimes abortions are used to prevent the birth of children so severely disabled that they would have a short life with zero quality and a lot of suffering. Surely it's a good thing to prevent that kind of unnecessary suffering, for both the unfortunate child and the mother who will have to watch her offspring suffer?

//So my response is that abortion to 20 weeks ought to be easily available, but after that time, utterly illegal.//

Utterly illegal? Even if it's necessary to save the life of the mother? If the best and safest treatment is an abortion, should it really be 'utterly illegal' if it's past the 20 week mark? Or might we make exceptions in cases of medical necessity?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 1 March 2017 7:34:24 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
AJ,

"The unborn child is human from the point of conception. Its DNA is proof of that. "

The stuff I leave in the bottom of the bowl after my morning ablutions also has human DNA. But with the best will in the world I can't see it growing up to be president.

If its human (whenever its human) it has all the rights that go with that. Whatismore, it needs to be protected and nurtured. The survival of the species relies on that. Reproduction is the main (the only?) purpose for our existence. Playing little mind games about when its humanity can be ignored rather misses the point of existence.

Even if its life threatens that of another, its right to life remains paramount. A society that acts otherwise is headed for a very dark place. If its true that some life is more important than other life, then why not enforce organ donations from 'lesser' people to save 'more worthy' people?

Again, I'm not anti-abortion. I think that, up to a point, it should be an unfettered right for women to end a pregnancy. But after that point, (and we seem to agree its at 20 weeks), society's requirement to protect all life takes over, even if the results are messy and detrimental to the mother's economic or psychological well-being. We have laws about child neglect for very good reasons. Society cannot operate otherwise. The issue is why those laws only apply when the head crowns.

It may be true or at least arguable that, say, a mongoloid baby in the womb should be put down for its own good. But unless those arguing that, are also prepared to argue that a mongoloid baby should have its brains sucked out a week after birth for its own good, they aren't being consistent and are missing the point of what being human means.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 1 March 2017 11:24:26 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
Correct, mhaze.

<<If its human … it has all the rights that go with that. Whatismore, it needs to be protected and nurtured.>>

Right up until the point at which it needs to use the body of another individual to survive. Then the mother’s rights trump those of the unborn child, as is also the case with children who have been born.

<<Playing little mind games about when its humanity can be ignored rather misses the point of existence.>>

At no point does my argument require that the humanity of the unborn child be ignored. It's about prioritising rights in a rational way. There are no mind games.

Also, appealing to a continuation of the species is irrelevant as we are hardly going to wipe ourselves out with abortions.

<<Even if its life threatens that of another, ...>>

Certainly not if its life threatens that of another! Even our laws recognise that people are not obliged to be good Samaritans if doing so would endanger their own life. And why doesn’t this right extend to people who have been born? I mean, we wouldn’t force a mother to donate a kidney to her child, so why does an unborn child have more rights than a child who has been born?

<<If its true that some life is more important than other life, then why not enforce organ donations from 'lesser' people to save 'more worthy' people?>>

It has nothing to do with importance, and everything to do with bodily autonomy. So your analogy here is invalid because it ignores the bodily autonomy of the hypothetical "lesser people".

<<The issue is why those laws only apply when the head crowns.>>

Because, again, the child is no longer dependent on another for its survival. You seem to be struggling with that point.

The problem with your 'When is it human?' method of determining rights, is that the answer will either always be arbitrary, or it would end up in a total ban on abortion. By making bodily autonomy the fundamental issue, we can take a reason-based approach to determining rights.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 1 March 2017 12:31:51 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
AJ

Its not a case of my not understanding your point about bodily autonomy, but a case of my disagreeing with it, even finding it abhorrent and not a little juvenile.

By your formula, a mother's rights to her body overrule the child's right to life while-ever that child is in the womb. The child cannot survive without her benevolence but she has every right to withdraw that benevolence as she sees fit.

Thus, by your formula, a women at say 33 weeks can simply decide that she no longer wants to be the life support system for her child and has the right to have its existence terminated. Such a formula, such thinking, I find abhorrent.

A scenario: women wants a child and, being in a well-paid job, reckons she can afford it without impacting her life-style. At 30 weeks she looses her job. Suddenly the new child is going to be a financial burden. She now longer wants the baby. Under your formula she has the right to withdraw her 'agreement' for it to use her body for its survival and to have it killed. Are you comfortable with such a world? Remembering that you've already said this thing to be killed is a human being.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 2 March 2017 11:17:56 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
This article is about legislation, not about morality.

If the laws of the state were meant to enforce morality, then not only abortion, but also drinking, gambling, meat-eating, adultery and advertising would be illegal, so would any sexual act that could lead to pregnancy because squeezing even more humans into this already-overcrowded world is also immoral. The full list of edicts and prohibitions would of course be much longer.

But upholding morality is not the role of the state - Fortunately, God can sort the goats from the sheep without the help of the state!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 2 March 2017 1:26:34 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
"God can sort the goats from the sheep without the help of the state!"
If you wonder why I don't believe there is actually a God at all, you only have to look at the sorry state that the world is in, particularly now that the US of A is now led by the biggest goat of all.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 2 March 2017 11:07:36 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. 4
  6. All

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