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 > Abortion and the human person > Comments

Abortion and the human person : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 9/7/2018

It seems impossible to refuse the conclusion that the foetus is a potentially self-aware human being and that it may not be disposed of as passive tissue or as animal life.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
In Truth & Reality, contrary to all of the idealist stuff about human beings being made in the "image of 'God'" Christian-ism communicates a very limited and Spiritually impoverished (mis)understanding of what we are as human beings, all wrapped up in one word, namely that we are all "sinners".

If you begin with the presumption of "sin" then everything that you do and say both individually and collectively is INEVITABLY and extension and re-enforcement of your sinfulness. How could it be otherwise!

To be a sinner is to be hell-deep Godless.
Sin is the presumption of separation from The Living Divine Reality. There is no Real Existence until sin is transcended. All actions and states of presumed "knowledge" and experience are empty, painful, problematic, and sinful until the presumption of separation from The Living Divine Being is utterly transcended.

What all beings require is Divine Communion. Without Divine Communion there is no True humanity, no responsibility, and no Real freedom. Without Divine Communion the usual dreadfully sane individual is simply an unconscious functional entity living a bewildered adventure of functional relations, without any sense of a Sacred or Divine Plane to his or her awareness.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 9 July 2018 9:36:57 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
Thanks Peter, I was fascinated by your insight into our human consciousness. "...Persons cannot be reduced to their descriptors because they are sentient beings, and as such are essentially unknowable. Indeed, we are unknowable to our very selves. We have no control over the thoughts that emerge in us, even those who attempt self-awareness are strangers to themselves. This is why "artificial intelligence" is a misnomer." We are truly God-like, unknowable, even to ourselves Alfred
Posted by Alfred, Monday, 9 July 2018 9:58:47 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
If you spend some time reading any of the billions of words written by Christians you will not get any sense whatsoever that the human body-mind-complex, and the World Process altogether is a psycho-physical Process. Nor, with rare exception will you any talk about the nature of Consciousness with a capital C, or of the paradoxical nature of Light, which is the Energy of Consciousness.

Nor will you find any hint of a suggestion what happens when we go to sleep every night - re spend a third of life sleeping.

The contents and significance of the dream state is never mentioned.

Nor is the nature and significance of the formless deep sleep state in which there are no objects, in which we are relieved of the inherent stress caused by objects and human others. This is why nearly all human beings quite readily go to sleep every night.

The formless state of deep state is actually the closest we come to our Real Condition - it has quite rightly been called the poor man's samadhi.

This essay provides a unique Illuminated Understanding of what we are as human beings and the Process that we are all involved in.

http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/unique.html

Re the all-important topic of sexuality the book introduced at this reference gives a very comprehensive description of the subtle psycho-physical yogic processes involved in becoming responsible for ones reproductive potential, and what it thus requires even to prepare one's own body-mind-complex before becoming a parent.

http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/small.html

There is more Wisdom communicated just in the Table of Contents of this book than all of the usual double-minded Christian blather on this very important topic
Posted by Daffy Duck, Monday, 9 July 2018 7:49:23 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
Dear Peter,

During WW2 my cousin’s boyfriend went off to war. Two months she got word that he had been killed in battle, and she found herself pregnant. She committed suicide apparently feeling there was no alternative. She was a wonderful person, and I think of her when I hear of the rights of the foetus.
Posted by david f, Monday, 9 July 2018 8:30:49 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
One of the problems of abortion is that it is seen as a solution. Sometimes seen as the only solution. If it wasn't for that, how wrong it really is would be seen more easily.

With that in mind, in order to fight abortion I think we need to fight for other solutions, and fight for other options to be known. Or even for more of the options to be readily available, like finical assistance to adopt or something simular.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 1:42:22 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
//With that in mind, in order to fight abortion I think we need to fight for other solutions, and fight for other options to be known. Or even for more of the options to be readily available, like finical assistance to adopt or something simular.//

But what if you make all those other options (let's face it, we're talking about adoption) available and women would still rather have abortions rather than give their kids up for adoption?

What's your Plan B in that scenario?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 1:51:21 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 Peter,

.

You wrote :

« The fall of Christendom and the rise of secularism has profound consequences for our understanding of the human person »
.

As I am sure you are aware, Peter, secularism (the separation of the state from religious institutions) has not "risen" (increased). It is a principle that remains constant. Nor could you possibly ignore the fact that the "fall" (decline) of Christendom has nothing to do with secularism. It is due essentially to two factors :

• the lack of credibility of the Church’s dogma and teachings to an increasingly better educated public in the modern world of the 21st century.

• the falling fertility rate (births per woman) in all countries without exception, and in dramatic proportions in Western countries. In Australia, the fertility rate fell from 3.5 in 1960 to 1.8 in 2016 :

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

It is quite naughty of you to misinform and mislead your faithful flock of followers in this way. I am sure you know better.
.

Even more surprisingly, you declare :

« We have no control over the thoughts that emerge in us »

Really ? That is a most astonishing statement. Do you really believe that we are incapable of reflection, of analysing our thoughts; of modifying or rejecting them? Perhaps, even, of realising that the exact opposite is true? Do you believe that we have no control whatsoever over them? Do we simply act on our uncontrolled impulses?

If so, I beg to differ.
.

Also, with reference to the equalitarianism ideal that is the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), you note that Iran declared that it would always choose Islamic law. Since then, Iran has led the struggle to modify the UDHR.

As you probably know, Iran is a founding member of the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) created in 1972, with 57-member states comprising a total population of about 1.5 billion. Iran’s historic rival, Saudi Arabia, is also a founding member.

Ironically, it was an Australian Christian fundamentalist, Denis Michael Rohan, who ...

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 2:14:11 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
If adoption was compairable in price to abortion then it would at least be a start. Right now they aren't on the same playing field of it being a readily available option.

There are other issues that abortion is seen as a solution to though. Most of them stem around the idea that the woman's life is over because of the pregnancy, or because of the baby. ("It'll ruin your life," kind of thinking). That kind of issue isn't resolved in adoption alone but can be addressed by a culture shift away from shaming new mothers that descided to keep their baby, or by helping find resources (such as jobs or incouraging community and family assistance).

But yes adoption is the biggest solution that I am aware of, and should be more available. At least as readily available an option as abortion is.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 2:17:00 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
.

(Continued …)

.

... prompted the creation of the OIC when he set fire to the pulpit of the Al-Aqsa mosque, in Jerusalem triggering an uproar throughout Islam :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Michael_Rohan
.

As for abortion, you have amply explained your reasons for opposing it, so I shall not add to that. On the positive side, I should like to quote from the speech of Simone Veil who presented the project of law legalizing abortion in France in 1974 : “No woman ever resorts to abortion with pleasure. You just have to hear the women. It is always a tragedy. It will always be a tragedy".

In addition, the following four reasons come to mind :

1. The right to choose

It’s her body, and it should be her choice. Abortion is never an easy decision. However, it should be a decision made by women themselves and not by (overwhelmingly male) lawmakers. Women know their own situation better than any judge or politician, and they are best-placed to make the difficult choice. The state should never force a woman to carry a foetus to term against her wishes

2. Banning abortion is condemning women to die

Every 11 minutes, a woman somewhere in the world dies from complications related to unsafe abortion. Making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of terminations taking place. Instead, it often drives women into the hands of black market abortionists, who perform illegal and unsafe operations

3. Legalising abortion does not mean more abortions

Several countries that have legalised abortion (such as Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands) actually have a lower rate of abortion than many countries in which the practice is illegal. This is because countries that ban abortion often also ban or heavily restrict access to contraceptives and sex education. If abortion is one option alongside a set of family planning measures available to women (and men), then it can be safe, legal, and rare

4. Obeying the supposed law of a hypothetical god can only be the personal choice of a woman who believes in a god who opposes abortion.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 2:20:45 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
Killing a human is wrong. Expecially killing an innocent person. If there was less focus on abortion being the solution, then the rational of it's only killing a feotus would dissipate as well. I'm confidant that if abortion wasn't seen as the only realible choice, then the rationalizations and excuses used to support abortion would die off too.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 2:31:35 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
There are no free rides for women or the aborted child, with abortion as the final solution.

As a convenient alternative to the Chinese solution of leaving the new born at the front gate overnight, to feed stray dogs, it has a more civilised and refined efficiency in the West.

But in the end it is all simply murder!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 6:18:52 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
The dream...

There appears to be a crying need for a bright young geneticist to modify women's bodies, to act in the reverse of their current and natural morphology.

This whole agonising question of wether or not to kill a foetus would be eliminated, if women could swallow a pill to become pregnant, rather than the opposite.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 6:58:52 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
If abortion was made illegal, if any woman who 'fell' pregnant was made to carry the foetus until birth, perhaps - as their part of the arrangement - the men responsible could automatically be required to raise the child. That may share the responsibility around a bit more.

Of course, many women would want to keep their child, so the financial costs of that decision could also be borne by the blokes responsible. A living wage could be paid to any woman by the father of their child until the child was eighteen.

Yep, that should solve the problem.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 9:09:45 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 all in favour of Retrospective Abortion in some cases.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 10 July 2018 9:55:04 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
.

Dear Peter,

.

Here are some interesting facts and figures on abortion :

Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions.

Here are the top 5 countries with the highest abortion rates :

http://top5ofanything.com/list/292947b6/Countries-with-the-Highest-Abortion-Rates-(all-countries)
.

El Salvador (a staunch Catholic country) is the worst place in the world for women’s reproductive rights :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/el-salvador-miscarriage-abortion-strictest-laws-in-world-sonia-t-bora-a7584671.html
.

« In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.7 per 100,000 procedures, making abortion about 13 times safer for women than childbirth (8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).
While maternal mortality seldom results from safe abortions, unsafe abortions result in 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities worldwide, each year. Complications of unsafe abortion account for approximately an eighth of maternal mortalities worldwide. Secondary infertility caused by an unsafe abortion affects an estimated 24 million women. The rate of unsafe [illegal] abortions has increased from 44% to 49% between 1995 and 2008.

Countries with restrictive abortion laws have higher rates of unsafe [illegal] abortion and similar overall abortion rates compared to those where abortion is legal and available. For example, the 1996 legalization of abortion in South Africa had an immediate positive impact on the frequency of abortion-related complications, with abortion-related deaths dropping by more than 90%. Similar reductions in maternal mortality have been observed after other countries have liberalized their abortion laws, such as Romania and Nepal » :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
.

I can't help thinking that it is partly due the Church's intransigent and callous attitude to human tragedies such as abortion that the "fall of Christendom" is also attributable.

But then, I guess the Church is not human, is it ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 11 July 2018 1:37:52 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
To Is Mise.

I'm against abortion to begin with, but retrospective abortions? The death penality for anyone should be something in the courts and only for a crime worth that degree of punishment. I don't know what retrospective abortions are but they sound like murdering your kids after they're born. Is that the jist of it? Or is it something like Court approved killing but without a crime worth a death penality kind of thing?
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 11 July 2018 2:51:39 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
Religion or politics have separate our belief. It's like following two leaders that think about humanity and the other about morality. However, no matter which way we go killing is still killing. God lend this body and soul to us and no one has the right to take it. I cannot see abortion as a solution, its a destruction. Slowly and slowly our generation thinks no more about morality and maybe they will forget even humanity and that will be the time that we feared most that we raised our kids in a world that we created. If you are pregnant then let it be. You're the one who rush things so you must know the consequences you'll have. The idea of taking a precious baby's life is no good. Some girls reason is they cannot raise the kid in a wealthy life, then don't. Just let him/her live. If you had already aborted your baby think about what he became a football superstar? Or she became a doctor? Don't abort the child you can give birth to her/him an leave him in an orphanage house where he/she can see the beauty of the world. It is still a human being and making it live is the only thing you can do.
Posted by MandyMania29, Wednesday, 11 July 2018 6:34:50 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 Mandymania,

When one aborts they may be killing another Einstein. They may also be killing another Hitler. In my opinion a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, and that right outweighs the right of someone else to interfere with her. It also outweighs any right of the foetus.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 11 July 2018 8:49:19 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 David,

A man should have an equal say in an abortion decision IF he is prepared to take responsibility for raising a baby, say until it's eighteen, as a sort of compensation for a woman having to carry and bear a child. IF a bloke doesn't want to do that, then he should have no say at all in what a woman may have to do with her body.

Of course, if a bloke wants a woman to keep his baby and raise it while he pisses off, then of course he should pay her a living wage for the duration.

It's all simple really.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 11 July 2018 9:37:47 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 Joe,

It is not his baby, but it is their baby. If pregnancy goes to the end she will have to go through labour. If a baby is born she will probably have to do the caring, training and raising. Therefore she should be the one to make the decision as to whether she wants to go to term or not. Only if it was a joint decision before she was impregnated should he have a voice.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 11 July 2018 9:54:09 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 again David,

Well, yeah, that's my point :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 11 July 2018 10:13:58 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
Having abortion considered as a valid solution is a sickness on society. There is too many excuses to justify abortion (it's a fetus not a person, it's a woman's choice, ect), and too many hard situtions to justify abortion (young mothers, hard family lives, poverty, or just inconvenience and "choosing" not to have the baby).

However any and all of these reasons fall flat on their face when talking about killing babies after they are born. At that point, there is an uprising for some action to resolve the issues. Whatever those issues could be. The inconvience of being a mother is not a resonable excuse to kill a child after they are born. But it is an excuse before the child is born.

With this in mind, I say it again. If other solutions such as adoption were readily available as abortion is, then I expect it would kill the rationalizations for abortion, to only 2. Was the woman raped, and is her health in danger due to the pregnancy. Outside of that, the consquence of a pregnancy is a hard consquence of not keeping your pants up. Facing that consquence by starting a family, might just be the change in culture needed to step away from loose and casual sex.

Of course the other option is to kill the unborn. A solution that is too tempting in my opinion, and shows a sickness in society. Who chooses death over responsibility? Apparently that's the world we live in. May the next generations be better then our own. The current stastatistic soft abortion is 1 in 5 women will have an abortion in their lifetime. May the next generation be better then our own.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Wednesday, 11 July 2018 11:38:52 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 NNS,

I think you probably are a man who will never will be pregnant and can talk about a sickness of society. In my opinion we are a healthier society in giving a woman a choice as to whether to bring a pregnancy to term. You will never feel the desperation of being a pregnant woman who has no place to turn to like my cousin who was pregnant and committed suicide. Her life and the life of the foetus in her was ended. Adoption or being a single mother was not a choice for her. Her only choice in the absence of a legal means of abortion was death, but you can feel holy. You can feel self-righteous. All hail the foetus!

I agree with you that there is a sickness in society. Only I think the sickness resides with people like you who can feel self-righteous in rolling back the clock and denying a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy - people like you who would bring back the backyard butcher. I think this generation in which a woman has the freedom to terminate a pregnancy is better than the past generation in which my cousin's only choice was suicide.

Her young man went off to war and was not coming back, and moralistic monsters can talk about keeping her pants up. No feeling for the desperate woman!

All hail the foetus!
Posted by david f, Thursday, 12 July 2018 2:12:13 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
David F.

Two things to set the record streight.

1). I'm not just suggesting removing abortion. I'm suggesting to make adoption just as available. From that my figuring is that abortion rates and the reasons to abort would die off. If there are any other solutions like options for a military widow to have a one time payment after the news of their husband's death, a payment for the services that man died for to the woman he loved. That could potentially be enough to help give the woman some other options then kill herself. My question is why wasn't adoption available to her? Why was suicide her only option? Because of what happened to your cousin I can stand by my statement that there is a sickness in society. Blame it on me if you want, but there should have been other options.

2). I wish this wasn't the case, but I'm not innocent when it comes to abortion. My wife and I, before we were married, had a quick panic because of a condom. You don't need any details, but the result was we got a plan b pill just in case.

When I say we have a sickness in society I'm including myself in that assessment. We live in a world where sex is expected and encouraged as an act of love long before any act of commitment is given in a relationship. We live in a world where the shame and potential hardship of having a child out of marriage is a reason for killing the child. This would not be allowed if the child is born. It should not be be viewed as a respectable choice to tempt people with before the baby is born either.

We have a sickness in society. And personally I would like a better world for the next generation to grow up in. It has to start somewhere. Let's start by making adoption affordable.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 12 July 2018 2:39:08 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
Dear NNS,

The problem with my cousin was not the unavailability of adoption. The problem was having a baby. Adoption is a solution for you. It wasn't for her. She couldn't even tell her mother she was pregnant. She might have killed herself even if her boyfriend hadn't been killed and was willing to come back and marry her. Poison was available. Legal, medically approved abortion wasn't. She lived in a sick society. I think we have a healthier society now.

Adoption is not a solution when pregnancy is the problem. Lack of money was not the problem. I think I would have been willing to marry her if I had known of her situation before she killed herself. I think society is sick in some ways but not in allowing a woman a choice.

I think it is a sickness of society when Turnbull states that he would like to see Australia one of the top ten arms producers, and there is relative silence. That is money for blood. Arms kill people of all ages including foetuses, but apparently that is ok. All hail the foetus!
Posted by david f, Thursday, 12 July 2018 3:13:38 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
.

Dear Peter,

.

In my previous post on page 3 of this thread, I surmised that perhaps the “Church” might not be human. Here are some indications from the Catholic Encyclopedia and the OED :
.

Catholic Encyclopedia definition of the word “Church” :

« The definition of the Church given by Saint Robert Bellarmine is that usually adopted by Catholic theologians : "A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith , and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth"

Note :

Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) was canonized and named a Doctor of the Church. He was inquisitor at three infamous inquisitions :

• The inquisition of Giordano Bruno, a Dominican Friar, philosopher, mathematician, and cosmologist, who was condemned for heresy and burnt at the stake

• The inquisition of Galileo who managed to have his sentence limited to “indefinite imprisonment” by abandoning Copernic’s theory which he had upheld : that the earth revolved around the sun and not the inverse

• The inquisition of Friar Fulgenzio Manfredi who was charged with the possession of forbidden books, contacts with heretics and autographed attacks on Catholic doctrine, the de-legitimisation of the Pope and the Council of Trent, and accusations of heresy. He was condemned as a “relapsed heretic” and burnt at the stake.
.

OED (Oxford English Dictionary) definition of the word “Church” :

1. A building used for public Christian worship.

2. A particular Christian organization with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines.

3. The hierarchy of clergy within a particular Christian Church.

4. Institutionalized religion as a political or social force.
.

Conclusion :

The “human” aspect of the “Church” does not appear to be particularly evident in either of these two definitions.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 12 July 2018 8:20:42 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
//With this in mind, I say it again. If other solutions such as adoption were readily available//

It is. I don't think the impediments to giving a child up for adoption are as vast as you imagine. Some countries even have baby hatches, which definitely takes the hassle away... people in those countries still have abortions rather than anonymously dropping their kid in the baby hatch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_hatch

You might want to have proper think about why that might be the case. And somehow, I don't think it's because a significant proportion of the female population are sick or wicked. Just from a statistical point of view, they can't possibly all be pyschopaths. If women who abort their kids are all evil monsters, we're missing an awful lot of evil monsters.

//might just be the change in culture needed to step away from loose and casual sex.//

What's wrong with casual sex, dude? Casual sex is awesome. If two (or more, if you're into that sort of thing) consenting adults wish to engage in the congress of the wombat, what is wrong with that? Why get so hung up about it? And why do you feel that it's anybody's business except the parties involved?

Just remember: if it's not on it's not on.

//Who chooses death over responsibility?//

A lot of women. A lot of normal, everyday, next-door neighbour type women who work and pay taxes and obey the law and are generally good, nice people. That you would so readily condemn says far more about your narrow-minded judgemental attitudes then it does about their supposed lack of morals.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 12 July 2018 8:52:20 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
//May the next generation be better then our own.//

Women have been having abortions for a very long time, across a borad range of cultures, NNS. I can't see it changing in a hurry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

The difference is that these days we have safe, medically supervised abortions. I think that's a lot better than women having to go to backyard butchers like they used to.

//Let's start by making adoption affordable.//

Sure, great idea. If parents want to adopt, I think the Government could do more to make it less onerous and more affordable.

But I don't see how that's going to address the problem of women not wanting to give their kids up for adoption in the first place. I'm not sure you've really thought this through. You seem to have concluded that if it's easier for people to adopt children, that will spontaneously cause women to want to give their children up for adoption, as if by magic.

After all, if women can have children and then anonymously drop them in a baby hatch - no cost, no responsibility - but they choose to have an abortion instead, doesn't that suggest to you that this matter is little more nuanced than your simplistic solution suggests?

Maybe some women would simply prefer to have an abortion to having a child and then relinquishing it? Maybe they're actually rational, intelligent beings who make a carefully considered decision where they weigh up the distress having an abortion will cause them vs. the distress having a child and reliquishing it will cause them, and then make a decision based on what they feel is best for them.

And maybe they when they're making that very important and personal decision they really don't give a rat's arse what distress them choosing an abortion will cause to you personally... and why the bloody hell should they?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 12 July 2018 8:53:25 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
Hi Toni,

Why are we talking about here ? A man and a woman have sex and the woman gets pregnant. If abortion was illegal, that leaves her in a far more difficult position than the bloke who might have pissed off and gone onto his next partner, perhaps to repeat the process. So how to either keep abortion legal or, as NSS may prefer, share the responsibilities ?

The woman, not the man, carries the baby to term, with all the inconveniences that brings, plus the chance of birth complications. If the bloke is still around, he is merely a spectator at that stage. Having gone to all that trouble, should a woman then have to look after the child until it's an adult while the bloke goes scot-free ?

So why not give her the option of passing the baby over to the bloke until it's eighteen, or looking after it herself with a living wage provided by the bloke - all under strict government regulation ? I recall that that used to be the legal situation, I knew quite a few blokes who had their pay 'garnisheed'. Of course, it may be difficult if the woman is unwilling to dob her partner in, but she may change her mind if the only other options are spelt out clearly: have the child adopted out, or look after it herself, on god-knows-what income.

But let's get back to the underlying issue: is an embryo a human being ? Most of us these days would say, not yet. At three months ? Okay, it's forming into a human being, but up until then, no. So abortion up until then is not really the ending of a human life.

And of course there may be complications for the mother-to-be after that, so abortion may be necessary later in the pregnancy to save her life, which many of us forget is, after all, the life of a living, viable human being.

So those may be the options: keep abortion legal, or pass the responsiblities onto the spectator.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 12 July 2018 10:08:57 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
Yep murder the unborn, leave the adoption list a mile long and import those who are happy to take multiple wives and have welfare pay. What a civilised mob we are.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 12 July 2018 4:21:38 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 Peter,

.

The Christian Church buildings are often referred to as “God’s House”, never the “House of the Faithful” or the “House of the People” or any other appellation that might somehow suggest that they are dedicated to the ordinary men, women and children who frequent them.

After all, who are the churches built for ? God ? Why does God need buildings ? Isn’t God supposed to be “infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient” ? Aren’t churches built for the “faithful”, the adherents to particular religions, to create an awesome and peaceful atmosphere of sanctity, not for God – he doesn’t need that – but for the “faithful”, the ordinary men, women and children who (as you say) are “sentient beings” and believe there is a God ?

In the US, the “People’s House” is what the Democrats call the House of Representatives. No God there at all. He is in a completely different building, at another address.

Strange, isn’t it ?

It seems that, for the American Democrats, the House of Representatives is far more human than the Church.

Maybe the Grand Old Party has a different point of view.

I shouldn't be surprised if it did.

Would you ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 12 July 2018 8:01:19 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
To David F.

This is going to sound harsh, but hear me out please. Suicide in my opinion is another very drastic symptom of the world, (or maybe more locally the nation or the culture that has suicides), that the world is sick. I take suicide as a serious matter and don't want my comments to be assessed as dismissing or lowering the value of suicide as an issue.

However with that said, why was the suicide committed, and in larger groups of people are there dynamic cultural structures that create reasons or conditions for suicide on a more massive scale?

With that in mind, you said your cousin couldn't tell her mother she was pregnant. But instead decided to commit suicide. This is a question not just for your cousin but for the larger society as a whole. Why couldn't she have told her mother she was pregnant? What was the underlying issue to stop her? I don't know your family dynamics but my first guess for her and those who face the same fear is the shame in telling her mom, and potentially the reaction the could come from it. If there are other reasons that you feel comfortable sharing, please go a head and do so. I know suicide is a very emotional time in which burdens become so huge for a person to face and deal with. Shame and the assumed backlash are huge burdens when in a situation where suicide wins out as a solution.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 13 July 2018 3:18:31 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)

As for today, there are abortion programs for people to have abortions in secret away from stigma and shame. This might seem to be the solution but in it the solution calls for killing unborn babies. Murder is the wrong word here because that's a criminal offense and murder is not accepted by society as a whole. None the less this killing of unborn children is still killing. And it is viewed as acceptable. A solution to the problem of pregnancy. That in my opinion is as monstrous as suicide is tragic.

This "solution" is where much of my comments have stemmed from. The problem with abortion is that it is seen as a solution and therefore killing children (as long as we don't see them and acknowledge they are alive and human) is an acceptable socially recognized venue to another problem of an over sexed and sex driven issues. Love, sex, and all the emotions related to relationships are an unlooked at issue because the consequence of pregnancy is solved by socially accepted killing.

(I'll get back to that later Toni Lavis, and thank you for the link on baby hatches. For now this is all I have time to comment on).
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 13 July 2018 3:20:05 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
Hi NSS,

When's your birthday ? The day you were born, or the day when your mum's egg was fertilised by your dad's sperm ? When do you celebrate ? Has it ever occurred to you to calculate that DoF, the Date of your Fertiisation ?

As a bloke, I'm not sure that I have much right to tell any woman what to do with her body. I can have fun for a couple of hours, maybe three, while she must deal with the consequences of that ecstasy for perhaps nine months, or if she takes the advice of many spectating men here, for eighteen years. There are no real consequences for me, unless she dobs me in to the various authorities, but I've probably pissed off by then, which might be inconvenient for me, but not for eighteen years at a stretch.

It's her business, first and foremost. Keep offering advice though, although it's not really your business or mine.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 13 July 2018 10:06:22 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 NNS,

I cannot tell you what was in my cousin’s mind. I know she didn’t tell her mother because her mother did not know she was pregnant until the girl was examined after her death. I can only assume that she thought life was no longer worth living in her circumstances. In her social milieu that was probably a reasonable judgment. I don’t think the social milieu that she was a part of has changed, but a girl in her circumstances now has an alternative, and that alternative is an abortion by a qualified medical practitioner.

In my opinion you and people like are part of the problem. You and people like think certain things are moral and certain things are immoral. I also feel that certain things are moral and certain things are immoral. However, I don’t feel that everybody has to have the same standards as I have. You apparently see your standards as standards everyone else should have.


To call a fetus an unborn baby is emotive language. A fetus does not necessarily become a baby even there is no abortion. Sometimes natural conditions terminate a pregnancy. You, I and other people will eventually die so all living people can be called undead persons. If you want to have a rational discussion about abortion you can start by calling a fetus what it is rather than call it an unborn baby.

Abortion is not killing children because a fetus is not a child. A fetus is human and alive, but it is not a child. If you want to have a rational discussion about abortion you can start by calling a fetus what it is rather than call it a child.
Posted by david f, Friday, 13 July 2018 8:30:59 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
Dear NNS,

To me it is a great social advance that a pregnant woman who does not want the pregnancy to go to term can get an abortion by a qualified medical practitioner. To me it will also be a great advance if a person who does want to live any more can be offered a simple non-painful end to her or his life. The person may be required to see a psychiatrist to determine whether it is due to depression which can be treated or whether it is a based on a rational judgment of the person’s circumstances.

In Japanese society if there is a great loss of face a person is expected to commit suicide. Should that mean that we have to feel the same about suicide? I feel no more bound by Japanese culture than I do by your religion.

You have already admitted your belief in a hell that people who don’t believe in your silly and stupid superstition get put into. It is a silly and stupid superstition because no reasonable religion would condemn people to an eternity of suffering for an opinion. You talked about a sick society. A religion that would condemn people to an eternity of suffering for an opinion is a sick religion.

Calling a religion silly and stupid is emotive language even if one judges it to be silly and stupid. Calling a fetus an unborn baby or a child is also emotive language. I’m sure you don’t like your religion called silly and stupid. Well, I don’t like a fetus called an unborn baby or a child. If you want to continue this conversation please try to stop using emotive language.
Posted by david f, Friday, 13 July 2018 8:33:58 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
.

Such is life,

.

Question : When does life begin ?

Reply (the astrophysicists) : On earth, it began about 3.7 billion years ago.

Question : At which point in time does an individual’s life begin ?

Reply 1. (Thomas Howell in New Sonnets and pretty Pamphlets, 1570) :

« Counte not thy Chickens that vnhatched be,
Waye wordes as winde, till thou finde certaintee »

Reply 2. (Samuel Butler’s poem “Hudibras”, 1664) :

« To swallow gudgeons ere they're catch'd,
And count their chickens ere they're hatched »

Reply 3. (proverbial words of advice that have withstood the test of time, 2018) :

« Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched »

Remark : And you can’t Christen “chickens” before they’re hatched can you ?
.

« A Bush Christening » :

On the outer Barcoo where the churches are few,
And men of religion are scanty,
On a road never cross'd '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 recognise 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 collogue,
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'?"

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 13 July 2018 9:15:36 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
.

(Continued …)

.

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 made 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.

"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"!

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 13 July 2018 9:20:29 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
Yep to call the unborn baby is as scientific as calling a jew a pig. Disgraceful with biology again ignored by the killers.
Posted by runner, Friday, 13 July 2018 10:40:00 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
//Yep to call the unborn baby is as scientific as...///

Use your words, runner.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 13 July 2018 11:34:18 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
Hi Loudmouth.

My day of conception seems to have been around late July. But I celebrate my birthday in April. A little interesting to look up, but not something I want too much detail on I guess.

As for rights of a man versus a woman about what to do with the pregnancy, I'm aware of the hard situation placed on many women. And this is in part what my reply to Toni Lavis was going to be on. Part of the problem is the willingness to have sex way too early in a relationship. Too often to have sex with no expectation of a relationship later. This feeds the dilemma of the burden on women. I get that, but how is it not sickening that death is one of the most accepted solutions. In my opinion a stronger sense of commitment should be taught to kids, for them to have before they are willing to have sex. In a culture where sex is expected way too early, I see casual sex as a problem. Not just for abortion reasons, but abortion is definitely one of the bigger reasons.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 14 July 2018 2:20:31 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
To David F.

I'm sorry if I asked a hard question regarding what might have influenced your cousin to commit suicide. I have been in a relationship that at the time meant so much to me, when it ended I had to fight against suicide as well. I don't know if this will help you or anyone else if you find them in a similar state of mind, but one of the reasons that held me away from that horrible decision was knowing how hard it is for parents to lose their children. So I reasoned it was a horrible thing to consider to willingly choose death and put my parents through that. That reason kept the action at bay long enough for life to move on and eventually get better for me.

Today I take suicide as a serious matter, and if anyone has insight about what situations trigger it, it might help in strengthening people against those issues earlier in their life, before the situation comes up and is hard to deal with at that time. That's largely why I asked, but I'm sorry if it was unfair to ask you.

As for fetus versus unborn baby/ unborn child. I I'll stick by my word choice. I think the term fetus is our culture trying to hide behind a medical term to distance themselves from the choice to kill. Ask a woman who's had a miscarriage. Did she lose a fetus? Or did she lose her baby? Or better still don't put her through that, but instead don't let yourself hide the matter behind a medical term, instead of calling it for what it really is. A fetus is the medical term for an unborn baby. There's no reason to shy away from it being known as an unborn baby.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 14 July 2018 2:22:13 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
To Toni Lavis.

You asked, what's wrong with casual sex. For one thing that pertains to this discussion it feeds the issues of abortion and the willingness to kill an unborn child. And in that people are willing and able to look for justification to that choice. From debates on if the fetus is a human yet, to officiating the issue by calling it a fetus in the first place. Without casual sex as being as acceptable, abortion might occur less often. (Regardless if it's legal and safe, or done in unsafe conditions). To really fix this issue though, it's not just that casual sex shouldn't be accepted, but also that life is more important then facing people's reactions to having sex outside of marriage. That way when casual sex does happen, it doesn't have to feed the issue to choose abortion.

Moving off the topic of abortion. What's wrong with casual sex is that it is often confused with love by at least one of the participants of the sex. Going back to heartbreak and suicide, if people held off on showing their love in the act of sex, they could fight off this reason for suicide. Wait until there's a commitment before getting into bed with someone.

Even without suicide as a result. The heartbreak you avoid giving, results in not having casual sex. It also can fend off adultery because those cheating on their spouse won't have the chance to have a casual fling if the other people to have a fling with expect more commitment before giving themselves up in the act. Without casual sex so many STDs can be avoided as well. A point earlier made by David F that abortion isn't the problem, pregnancy is. But if casual sex wasn't socially accepted (and largely expected) then pregnancy wouldn't be a problem that needed a killing solution for.

Not to mention how sex is used in unhealthy relationships. That's an issue on it's own, and hopefully too rare to count as a reason. But it is out there.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 14 July 2018 3:30:19 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
(Continued)

There you go Toni. Reasons why casual sex should not be accepted, or promoted. That said I don't think my words will be enough to influence people away from our strong sexual desires. In my opinion having other solutions to abortion is one step. The baby hatch is one of those options and I approve of it. Unfortunately in the countries that have it practiced, not many have laws that support it. I wasn't aware of much of that info before you shared that link. So again I thank you. A second step might be stronger values towards unborn babies as being unborn babies. And with that more of the population having kids even though they had them out of marriage or had them in their teens. It can be done. One of my high school friends had a loving mother who had her as a teen. Personally I'm happy she's alive and wasn't aborted.

It might also discourage others from having sex too early because they watch their friend go through the pregnancy and the labor. Not to discourage having children, but to realize that they aren't ready for that yet. A solution that might be two generations away to change our culture of casual sex, but can start now with our generation valuing the life in them and going full term instead of aborting.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 14 July 2018 3:32:15 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 undead human aka NNS,

The right of a woman to have an abortion by a qualified medical practitioner has been a hard-fought right which is now the law of the land. I would like to see adequate information on preventing conception provided in the schools and other places, an adequate supply of contraceptives and encouragement of their use. That would make abortion less needed but would not eliminate it. Unfortunately many of those who are against abortion are also against the use of contraceptives. They are against people having sexual relations unless people go through certain formalities. H. L. Mencken described the ideology of these people as “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”



A few years ago I attended an atheist's convention in Melbourne. It was a sedate affair with discussion. Some of the discussions involved the persecution and murder of people who openly proclaimed themselves as atheists. In some societies that happens. In Australia we have the freedom to have any opinion regarding religion. The atheists convention was a sedate affair- no drunks – no outrageous pranks or obnoxious behavior. Outside the building there were groups of Muslim and Christian pickets. Apparently they objected to the fact we didn’t subscribe to their theistic fantasies.

Nearby was a hotbed of vice – a casino. Casinos bring with a host of social ills such as bankruptcies and prostitution. However, the pickets didn’t seem concerned with the casino or the social ills connected with it. They were upset with us.

Some God-botherers not only have the fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy, they want to control both the minds and bodies of others who don’t share their delusions.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 14 July 2018 6:19:16 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
//From debates on if the fetus is a human yet, to officiating the issue by calling it a fetus in the first place.//

Foetus is the technically correct term for a human in certain phase of the prenatal development. It goes zygote -> blastocyst -> embryo -> foetus, if my memory serves me correctly. I shouldn't worry too much about it if I were you. It's technical jargon, intended for biologists and doctors and science nerds like me who to be technically correct about stuff. Regardless of what you call it it's still the same thing.

//Without casual sex as being as acceptable, abortion might occur less often.//

Yeah, but expecting people to just abstain from Cody simply isn't realistic. He has his own truck, does a hundred push-ups every morning and plays the guitar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKDlyjce-UM

Sorry, dude. Cody's really popular. And frankly, it's not hard to see why. I think that you'll be fighting a losing battle to make Cody less acceptable, even if it would reduce the abortion rate. I really think that a better strategy would be to educate people as much as possible about Cody, rather than wasting all your efforts of trying to make people not like Cody. Because mate, we've always liked Cody and we always will. It's hardwired in, I'm afraid.

//What's wrong with casual sex is that it is often confused with love by at least one of the participants of the sex.//

Yeah, perhaps, when they're young and naive I suppose. I rather suspect that even fairly thick people cotton on fairly quickly that there's a bit more to love than shagging a stranger. I feel sorry for those who don't... but what can you do?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 14 July 2018 9:03:14 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
//Going back to heartbreak and suicide, if people held off on showing their love in the act of sex, they could fight off this reason for suicide.//

Well I've had some bad sex in my time, but if it leaves you heartbroken and suicidal....

Hang on, you're not talking about casual sex at all, are we? You're talking about sex between committed, romantically involved couples. Not just two strangers hooking up for a shag. I don't consider the sort of sex you're talking about to be 'casual sex', NNS. Just because sex occurs outside of marriage, that doesn't automatically make it 'casual sex'. The technical term for sex outside of marriage is 'fornication', but it's not necessarily casual. An engaged couple fornicating could hardly be said to be just having 'casual sex', could they? They're engaged for Christ's sake.

//Wait until there's a commitment before getting into bed with someone.//

Why? Because IF the casual sex happens to be vaginal intercourse and IF the guy cums and IF his condom fails and IF her pill fails and IF all that results in a pregnancy then an abortion might be the result?

Lot of IF's there, NNS. And there's fairly simple way to stop that first domino falling. I'm surprised you're not familiar with it - it's called God's Loophole and it's very popular with some bible-bashers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY

Nah, just kidding. That's gross. Good song though.

But everybody likes oral :)

//It also can fend off adultery because those cheating on their spouse won't have the chance to have a casual fling if the other people to have a fling with expect more commitment before giving themselves up in the act.//

We're not talking about adultery, but I'll give you points for trying.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 14 July 2018 9:04:59 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
//Without casual sex so many STDs can be avoided as well.//

Yeah, and if you spend your life in a sterile plastic bubble you can avoid all the non-sexually transmitted diseases as well. And a lot of them are lot worse.

BTW, did you know that you probably have herpes already and you just don't realise it because you don't have symptoms? You're welcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU4VcOQzQm0

Alternatively you can do what most of us do when it comes to all the nasty diseases waiting to get us: take reasonable precautions, get your shots, practice good hygiene, have regular medical check ups and consult a doctor sooner or later about any symptoms that concern you.

//But if casual sex wasn't socially accepted (and largely expected) then pregnancy wouldn't be a problem//

No, it would still be a problem. A lot of women who have abortions are in married or in committed relationships.

//Not to mention how sex is used in unhealthy relationships.//

Sorry, no points for trying to conflate consensual sex and abuse. What are you, a third-wave feminist?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Saturday, 14 July 2018 9:06:32 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
Dear Banjo,

Thank you for the good poem!

Allow me to throw into the ring two Jewish answers to the question:

Q. When is a human organism considered to have a life of its own?

The Rabbinical Answer: On the 40th day since conception - until then it is "mere water", http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082

The Jewish Mother's Answer: When it receives its doctorate, preferably in law or medicine.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 14 July 2018 9:59:44 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
.

Thanks, Yuyutsu. I first published that poem in “The Bulletin” in 1893.

Thank you, also, for that article on “The beginning of human life”. I note with interest that :

“The consensus about the time when human life really begins is still not reached among scientists, philosophers, ethicists, sociologists and theologizes. The scientific data suggested that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist … ”.

.

To all and sundry,

.

As for abortion, there is no standardised national data collection on unplanned pregnancy and abortion in Australia.

Studies of Australian and New Zealand women seeking abortion have shown that over half of women presenting for abortion had been using contraception prior to becoming pregnant.

No contraception is 100% effective and contraception can fail even when used correctly and consistently. The World Health Organisation estimates that even if all contraceptive users used contraception perfectly in every sexual encounter, there would still be six million unintended pregnancies every year.

It is estimated that half of all pregnancies in Australia are unplanned and that half of those are terminated. Also, that between one quarter and one third of Australian women will experience an abortion in their lifetime. Despite this relatively high (estimated) abortion rate, the birth rate of Australia is not bad at all compared with that of much of the Western world.

Australia’s birth rate is 12.1 births/1000 population, the same as that of the UK and Sweden; New Zealand’s is well above ours at 13.2, followed by the US’s at 12.5, then France’s and Norway’s (both at 12.2).

It is interesting to note that, by comparison, China’s birth rate is 12.3 and that of Russia is 11. Saudi Arabia’s is 18.3 and Iran’s is 17.9.

The country with the highest birth rate is Angola’s at 44.2. The lowest is that of Monaco at 6.6. Of the total 225 birth rates recorded, Australia’s arrives in the 167th position.

Here is the list :

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=as&v=25
.

Here is the latest fact sheet on abortion, published by the World Health Organisation (WHO) :

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/induced_abortion_2012.pdf

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 14 July 2018 11:59:54 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
To Banjo Peterson.

The links in your post give some discerning numbers. One saying a ratio of 1 in 3 women will have an abortion in their lifetime is bad enough. But the birth rate in one of those sites shows the Australia and the US birth rates to be 12.1 and 12.5 births per 1000 population. But the abortion rate as indicated by the latest WHO report in the other link has the US at a higher rate of abortions. (As you've said no data yet on Australian abortion rates). If the US and Australia are similar in culture enough to be similar in abortion rates then this is a disconcerting ratio of higher number of abortions then there are of births.

I hope there are differences in how the numbers are crunched, as one says the birth rate is per 1000 population, and the other abortion ratio says it's a rate on a specific age range of women. Though that is still a disconcerting number reference. Wish they were able to be calculated in the same manner to see how much of the population is being born and how many are being aborted, based on the same standards of population sampled from.

Your points on abortion and contraception use is worth being said. Not to remove the practice of contraception to control risk, but if your numbers are right, 6 million abortions from those using contraceptives is a sickening number of deaths by abortion.

Thank you for the data in the links and the points you made.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 15 July 2018 3:30:06 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
To Toni Lavis. I think we're differing on our use of casual sex. You seem to be sporting it mean one night stands only. While that is included in my meaning of casual sex, what I am talking about is a culture of sex early in relationships. From one night stands to the expected number of dates before sex is expected. If a relationship lasts less then a month and already has sex in the equation then I count that as casual sex. Adultery also fits into this sitution because often those who are having one night stands or in a sexual relationship that was pursued for longer, often they are unaware that the other person is already married until later in the relationship. Then they leave the cheater, or hold on to the idea that the married cheater will leave their spouse for the other person. Adultery kills marriages, and adultery is fueled by the larger issue of casual sex being accepted in our cultural norms and values.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 15 July 2018 3:31:48 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
To David F. It's true, I'm Christian and you are atheist. That is not the point of this discussion, nor are there any reason to make my faith the focus of dismissing my points.

A few points in light of your assessment of Christians wanting to ruin other people's happiness, and based on a protest you were near at an atheist meeting.

1). The criticism of ruining people's happiness could be applied to causes that sought to stop drunk driving and driving under the influence. Some of those groups go further then just to not drink and drive, but also to not drink at all because of all the harm and deaths that are related to alcohol. Those that pushed for just not driving after drinking are not trying to ruin anyone's happiness, but are trying to reduce the auto accidents due to drinking. Most of those organizations aren't saying not to drink either just to drink responsibly. Like wise my views on sex and dating are not, "don't do it;" but to wait until there's a commitment to each other before having sex. The death rate due to abortions is large enough to compare to the death rate due to drunks on the road. It's a problem worth fighting against.

2) Regarding the protest. Was I in those protests? Then don't hold it against me that you were around a protest. Personally I don't see any point to protests now a days. They are ignored and not listened to, except to bring out fights between those who are protesting and those they are protesting against. They are useless except to fuel conditions for violence. As for atheists in general? What does that have to do with this conversation? Are atheists the only people having abortions? Are they the only ones who are having casual sex. This issue of sex and abortion goes beyond the borders of religions and beliefs. Therefore your worry that your an atheist and I'm against you having sex is meaningless. The issue is the death rate to unborn babies because we choose to kill them.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Sunday, 15 July 2018 3:40:15 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 NNS aka undead human,

You wrote: "The issue is the death rate to unborn babies because we choose to kill them."

That is rubbish. That is your use of an emotional nonsense phrase so as not to discuss the issue in a rational manner.

There is no such thing as an unborn baby. A baby is not a baby until it is born. An entity unborn is not a baby. 'Unborn baby' is an oxymoron. That is an issue in your mind because you apparently can't see clearly enough to recognize that you repeat a nonsense phrase. It is a measure of your callousness and narrowness that there is no concern shown for the woman involved - only the fetus. That is the only thing that apparently matters to you. All hail the fetus.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 15 July 2018 8:39:37 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
//I think we're differing on our use of casual sex.//

Yes, I suspect we are. I think you're employing it as a euphemism for fornication - any sex outside of marriage. Whereas I consider casual sex to be a subset of broader category of fornication.

//Adultery also fits into this sitution...//

Round 2, eh? Sorry, NNS, I can only award you points for effort once.

There's a very, very big difference between adultery and fornication. Adultery is necessarily immoral. Fornication is not.

Everybody knows that adultery is wrong. It's wrong because it breaks the Golden Rule: treat other people the way you'd like to be treated. It is a form of betrayal, considered the worst of sins by Dante. If you wouldn't want to be betrayed like that, you shouldn't do it to other people. And if you do, you're a dick, pure and simple.

That applies to those within the relationship and to anybody outside the relationship, but only if the outside party is knowing accomplice. If they're in the dark and unaware that they are party to adultery, then the moral fault lies not with them but with the person who deceived them.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 15 July 2018 7:27:01 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
Fornication, as far as I can see, doesn't necessarily break the Golden Rule. Fornication does not have to involve treating people in a way that you wouldn't be happy to be treated. If it did, I wouldn't be up for it.

//The criticism of ruining people's happiness could be applied to causes that sought to stop drunk driving and driving under the influence.//

No, it couldn't. Anti drink driving initiatives don't seek to stop people enjoying the pleasures of alcohol; they seek to stop people behaving recklessly whilst drunk. They don't say 'don't have any fun' like puritans and wowsers do, they say 'go ahead and have your fun but stay safe and don't be a bloody drongo - here's some useful advice on how to do that'.

Which is pretty much the message of every safe sex program everywhere, except for the abstinence based ones which don't give any useful advice on how to stay safe and are, unsurprisingly, not as effective as the sensible ones.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 15 July 2018 11:07:58 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
.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

Famine and food shortage kills more people every year than road accidents and abortion combined.

Despite that (or, perhaps, partly because of that) the countries that are most affected by famine and food shortage also happen to have some of the highest birth rates in the world.

Here is the list of the top 12 currently affected by food shortage :

Zambia ………………………………....... birth rate - 41.5/1000 population
Burundi………………………………………………. - 41.3
Somalia ……………………………………………… - 39.6
Madagascar ………………………………………... - 38.1
Nigeria ………………………………………………. - 36.9
Ethiopia ……………………………………………... - 36.5
Chad …………………………………………………. - 35.6
Timor-Leste …………………………………………..- 33.4
Eritrea …………………………………………………- 29.6
Yemen ……………………………………………….. - 28.4
Sudan ………………………………………………… - 27.9
Comoros ……………………………………………... - 26.1

The average birth rate of these twelve countries is 34.6, almost three times the birth rate of Australia (12.1).

It is reported that of the 870 million people who lacked food in 2014, it was estimated by the World Food Programme that 98% lived in developing countries :

http://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/the-worlds-10-hungriest-countries/

CBS News reported in 2017 that 20 million people in 4 countries (Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen) were on the brink of famine :

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/20-million-people-in-4-countries-on-the-brink-of-famine/

The average birth rate of these four countries is 33.2 – again, almost three times the birth rate of Australia.

One would expect that the families of such poor countries, so badly affected by food shortage, would refrain from having more children, but that is not the case. They continue to have more and more children, many of whom die from malnutrition within the first five years of their birth.

Giving birth to children in such conditions can hardly be considered any better, morally, than having an abortion.

Communist China introduced strict birth control measures in 1979 with its one-child policy which became two-child policy in 2016. There are no reliable birth and abortion statistics, but it is thought that current annual births are in the region of 17 million and total annual abortions about 7 million. There is some speculation that China is now considering abandoning birth control altogether, given the persistently low birth rate and aging population :

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/prc/ab-prcp.html

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 16 July 2018 7:23:06 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
To Toni Lavis.

I'm glad we both agree on how bad adultery is. If you do it your a dick. Fully agree. As for fornication versus waiting until marriage. I'll say that waiting until marriage would be ideal. To my knowledge I don't know anyone who has waited until marriage. But at the very least I would stand by the idea to not have sex until you get to know someone and form a bond that has a lasting relationship to it. A commitment that can be more dependable. Can't garentee anything is full proof dependable because marriages too often end in divorce. But at least be in a relationship for a few months before having sex. At least 6 months would be great.

I looked up google's definition of casual sex, and Google seems to agree with you on what that term means. However in my opinion sex is too casual in it's occurrence. Back to back relationships lasting no more then a week, some no more then a day before a bitter breakup, to often still have a spark that leads to sex and just as easily a different issue sparks a fight ending everything with as much fireworks in anger as there was before in passion. This in my opinion is wrong. We give ourselves up to easily and in the end I think sex is worth more than that. Should be given to those that can be trusted with it more then just passing it out because your labeled yourself in a relationship for a day or 2 weeks.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 16 July 2018 7:57:56 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
(Continued)

With that said, I'm sure it's no surprise that I'm also against casual sex without a relationship. If it wasn't for the issue of abortion I could let it go easier and say it's not hurting anyone else, even though I think it's wrong and harms the people doing it. But because of abortion I can't just say two (or more) consenting adults having fun. To many babies die tragically without our choosing to add to that number willingly, by killing them before they have the chance to be born.

On the matters of casualness of sex in relationships, I stand by my views that I said earlier. And though I disagree with casual sex outside of a relationship also, I'll acknowledge there is a difference between sex in a relationship and and sex without relationships.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 16 July 2018 7:59:02 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
To David F.

You accuse me of only using the words I use to be emotional instead of having a rational discussion. Yet you are doing your best to avoid a rational discussion by your ranting of "all hail the fetus" and in your address to me the term "undead human." If you truly wanted a rational discussion you would not use this kind of approach. So by all means live by your own standards instead of being hypocritical about them. As for my wording I've explained my stance. Fetus is a medical term, and has been used to hide behind when unfolding other rationalizations to distance abortions from actually killing anyone. "If a fetus really a person yet" kind of discussions. It is sickening that a small change of a word can be the means of rationalizing and choosing to kill a person that a mother is pregnant with. If you would like to discuss the matter rationally, then here's your chance.

What is the difference in behavior or identity between a fetus (medical term for unborn baby), and a neonate (baby within the first 28 days of birth). Infant is the term for babies under a year old, though toddler is also used in this stage of development. I ask because there is some surprising findings of early fetuses behaving as neonate a and infants do. Such as sucking on their thumbs as seen in ultra sound scan pictures.

If you see no distinguishing difference between an unborn baby, and a newborn, then there's no rationality to make a fuss over my use of the term "unborn baby."

I'm sorry for your cousin, but suicide is not a good enough reason to kill by abortion.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 16 July 2018 8:08:28 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 Banjo Paterson,

You wrote:

"One would expect that the families of such poor countries, so badly affected by food shortage, would refrain from having more children, but that is not the case. They continue to have more and more children, many of whom die from malnutrition within the first five years of their birth.

Giving birth to children in such conditions can hardly be considered any better, morally, than having an abortion."

Those 'immoral' people who are having children in such conditions probably do not have access to or knowledge of contraceptive measures, realise that many children die as infants and so may have children in the hopes that some of them will survive, have sex as one of the few pleasures in life available to them.

Christian missionaries are responsible for some of the consequences of the uncontrolled birth rate. Various means of preventing conceptions or inducing miscarriages were available in tribal cultures. The indigenous people were quite aware of the consequences of producing more people than the land could sustain. Some Australian Aboriginal tribes had the males actually bore a hole in the base of the penis. If the couple wanted to have children the man would hold his finger on the hole during intercourse, Lf not the sperm would simply leave via the hole. In Bougainville some of the plants can induce miscarriages. If a pregnant woman does not wish to have a child she would eat one of those plants and have a miscarriage. Christian missionaries promoted the idea that sex is immoral if engaged in solely for pleasure and not for reproduction. This idea was reinforced for government withholding handouts to tribal people who observed those aspects of their culture. Christianity in that case was opposed to common sense and promoted a social ill.

Dear NNS aka known as undead human,

One doesn’t hide behind medical terms. One uses them because they describe medical conditions. The term “All hail the fetus." expresses your callous attitude in regarding the woman as only a receptacle who should go to term regardless of the consequences to her.
Posted by david f, Monday, 16 July 2018 8:43:58 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
//But because of abortion I can't just say two (or more) consenting adults having fun. To many babies die tragically without our choosing to add to that number willingly, by killing them before they have the chance to be born.//

Sounds like you're doing it wrong, NNS. You should have a look into becoming a Protestant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBjsFAyiwA

"That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realized the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas."
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 16 July 2018 4:35:28 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
To Banjo Paterson. That's a good point about the birth rate and famine. According to the first link malnutrition and hunger though isn't just because of famine, but also war and man made conflict. I don't think abortion will solve any of those issues, and think that instability of each of those countries is the more pressing element. I don't think compairing one tragedy to another tragedy resolves either. The instability and war in or surrounding each of those countries doesn't make the death count by abortion any better. If your number estimates on births and abortions are correct, then that's over 1/4th of all pregnancies are aborted. That is a sickening number and should be a symptom of something being very wrong. Regardless if abortions are legal and safe or are in unsafe conditions; 1/4th of the next generation being killed by their parents is a horrible number.

To David F.

You think I don't care about women? Or is that just your latest slander to try and discredit my points. Ignoring the points I give doesn't help your case. Especially when I address your points and still show how abortion is wrong.

Let's go back to my first point. If adoption was supported by grants or funding to the same degree that abortion is funded and pushed internationally, then I think that's a good first step to ending the evil that is abortion. It's not the last thing needed, but it would be a great first step.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Monday, 16 July 2018 5:31:58 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
Dear NNS,

Yes, I think you don't give a damn about women. You're the one who said she should keep her pants on. You're the one who condemns other people for their choices in sex. You're the one who talks about the evil of abortion.

Abortion is not an evil at all. It is a medical procedure which women who do not wish to give birth undergo, nd she has a right to decide on that procedure. It has been denied women in the past and still denied women in some societies. In any invasive medical procedure there is a risk. Therefore abortion should be limited. It can be limited by contraception, sex education and oral and other non-coital sex including homosexual acts.

I don't agree that abortion is wrong. I don't agree that sex between consenting adults is wrong unless it involves betrayal of another person. If we all agreed on what is right and what is wrong we would have a more peaceful world. However, you and don't agree and will not agree on what is moral and what is immoral.
Posted by david f, Monday, 16 July 2018 6:04:23 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
//Let's go back to my first point. If adoption was supported by grants or funding to the same degree that abortion is funded and pushed internationally, then I think that's a good first step to ending the evil that is abortion.//

You still haven't explained the point I raised four days ago:

//Sure, great idea. If parents want to adopt, I think the Government could do more to make it less onerous and more affordable.

But I don't see how that's going to address the problem of women not wanting to give their kids up for adoption in the first place. I'm not sure you've really thought this through. You seem to have concluded that if it's easier for people to adopt children, that will spontaneously cause women to want to give their children up for adoption, as if by magic.

After all, if women can have children and then anonymously drop them in a baby hatch - no cost, no responsibility - but they choose to have an abortion instead, doesn't that suggest to you that this matter is little more nuanced than your simplistic solution suggests?

Maybe some women would simply prefer to have an abortion to having a child and then relinquishing it? Maybe they're actually rational, intelligent beings who make a carefully considered decision where they weigh up the distress having an abortion will cause them vs. the distress having a child and reliquishing it will cause them, and then make a decision based on what they feel is best for them.//

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19834#350922

Were you hoping that you could just sweep that one under the rug and nobody would notice? If you can't explain to us how your brilliant idea is going to address the problem you claim it help solve, why should we entertain it for even a second? You're going to have to do better than that, mate.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 16 July 2018 6:13:42 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 f, Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

david f wrote :

« The indigenous people were quite aware of the consequences of producing more people than the land could sustain. Some Australian Aboriginal tribes had the males actually bore a hole in the base of the penis. If the couple wanted to have children the man would hold his finger on the hole during intercourse, if not the sperm would simply leave via the hole. In Bougainville some of the plants can induce miscarriages. If a pregnant woman does not wish to have a child she would eat one of those plants and have a miscarriage. »

As all human beings, including our Aboriginal compatriots, appear to have originated from various parts of Africa, I wonder if the contemporary African peoples in famine-affected countries are aware of those simple preventive measures – that have little to do with “expensive” modern, scientific, birth control measures.

Perhaps we should ask some of our Aboriginal friends to instruct them on these methods. It might even be a good idea to ask them to instruct future candidates and existing members of the priesthood as well.

It’s certainly worth considering.
.

As for famine, a food security crisis is considered a famine when, according to the United Nations :

• 20 percent of households face extreme food shortages with a limited ability to cope,

• acute malnutrition rates exceed 30 percent,

• the death rate exceeds two persons per day per 10,000 persons

The causes of famine are complex and often have several causes contributing to both its initiation and rapid spread. Aside from conflict, climate change and lack of international response, lack of response from the domestic government and rising prices of food also potentially contribute.

Clearly, the causes of famine range from local, to international, to natural or environmental.
.

On the subject of abortion, allow me to observe that all life forms are not always beneficial for mankind. Many are detrimental, even fatal. Some, such as malignant cysts, for example, usually have to be removed by surgery.

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 17 July 2018 3:07:20 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 …)

.

A foetus is a life form that is “partly different from” but “totally dependent on” the female of the human species that nurtures it.

The formation of a foetus is part of the natural process of the reproduction of the species. The end result is the production of a new individual or “person”.

According to the experts, its development is both structural and functional. An important element is the human brain, which is particularly complex. Recent research reveals that the brain does not reach full maturity until the new individual or “person” reaches, at least, his or her mid-20s.

The specific changes that follow young adulthood are not yet well studied, but it is known that they involve increased myelination (i.e., enclosure of nerve fibres in an insulating sheath which increases the speed at which impulses are conducted) and continued adding and pruning of neurons.

As a number of researchers put it, "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car.

Before forming a definitive opinion on the morality or immorality of abortion, I think we should acknowledge the fact that, as Yuyutsu reminded us :

« The consensus about the time when human life really begins is still not reached among scientists, philosophers, ethicists, sociologists and theologizes. The scientific data suggested that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Current biological perspectives on when human life begins range through fertilization, gastrulation, to birth and even after. The development of a newborn is a smoothly continuous process » :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582082/
.

We would also be well-advised to carefully consider and evaluate the particular conditions, circumstances, environment and responsibilities involved in bringing a new “person” into the world, together with his or her future perspectives in life.

All of these factors are constitutive of a sound and just morality.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 17 July 2018 3:15:59 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
.

Oops !

I wrote "perspectives in life" but, of course I meant "prospects in life".

Sorry about that.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 17 July 2018 7:35:40 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
To David F.

Just because I don't support abortion doesn't mean I don't support women. Let that sink in a bit before you respond. Think of it like this. If you had a life and death sutution where you were rescuing people from a sinking ship. And at the end of it you had two people left to rescue. But only could take one. A mother and her young baby. Neither are conscience and choosing one will likely be the last person you can take. Who would you choose? I'm sure regardless of the choice anyone would take they would see this as a tragedy, and might haunt their dreams. The person they could not save.

This is the kind of tone that abortion supporters seem to have, choose the fetus or choose the mother. Except that it's usually not a life or death situation. The baby dies by the choice of abortion and that's the end of it. No mater what the sitution is or the hardships that are there the tragedy is on the side of the baby, not on the woman.

That said, take it a step back from the extreem tones that pro abortion arguments take it. The hardships of the women are not lost on me. And though I don't see abortion as a valid solution, that doesn't mean that I don't want to support the women who choose life instead of death.

Let that sink in for a brief second before moving on to the next point. Because it's important to note the difference between being against abortion, and being against women.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 17 July 2018 5:46:19 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
(Continued)

The second point is regarding my point on keeping your pants up.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19834&page=4

I was not talking about women as the blame of not keeping their pants up, but society as a whole for being loose. You might not see any issue with the casualness that people have sex in relationships (or even more casual without relationships attached), but on the other hand you also don't recognize a fetus as a living human being. Nothing worth consideration. So you miss the point entirely anyways.

When I say pregnancy is a consequence of not keeping your pants up, let's be clear, I'm talking about guys more then gals, because largely it seems it's the guys that want sex more often and expect it more often. Girls already have a culture to be little ladies of some kind or another, and to not be considered slutty or something. But guys on the other hand have no such reservations of shame. Thus in my opinion it's guys like you that need to keep their pants up. Pregnancy would still be the consequence non the less. At least it would be if life was considered more important.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 17 July 2018 5:48:53 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
To Toni Lavis. I read the article you gave about baby hatches. They don't seem to be that prevalent or supported. In many countries they exist in spit of the law saying they shouldn't and mothers can be prosecuted for abandoning their babies. The one example that seems to exist, that is both wide spread and government sanctioned is the US's version of "safe haven laws," with letting women give up their babies at hospitals and fire stations. No questions asked and the babies would be put into the system for adoption or foster care.

The crutch of the matter is that people don't see abortion as killing. If adoption was as affordable (it isn't) then the worry about what life the child would have would be lessened, and many of the arguments for abortion would lose weight. The only reasons why abortion has reasons is because we've distanced ourselves from recognizing the fetuses to be alive. To be unborn babies. Thus rationalizations stem up for why to abort because it's not like your killing a baby. (If people realized what they were doing they would realize they are killing babies though. Their choosing their deaths before they have the chance to be born). Just because abortion is chosen doesn't make it a moral and good choice.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Tuesday, 17 July 2018 6:24:12 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 NNS,

We agree that abortion is killing the fetus. I think a woman has a right to kill the fetus if she does not want to go to term unless there was a prior agreement with the man involved. In that case his wishes should be considered. I think it was wrong when a woman did not have access to a abortion by a doctor. I say "all hail the fetus." because you seem to me to want to deny her the right to terminate her pregnancy and put the interests of the fetus above the interests of the pregnant woman. In order for adoption to be a solution a woman has to be willing to go through pregnancy, give birth and give the baby. For women who do not want to continue pregnant, do not want to go through labor and do not want give a baby away if there is a baby adoption is not a solution. I think if you did have a concern for a woman you would not seek to deny her the right to terminate a pregnancy.

You have stated that abortion is evil. I don't think abortion is evil.

In the United States about 16 years after Roe vs. Wade which granted women the right to abortion the crime rate started to go down. That to me meant that women knew the consequences of giving birth in their situation. They didn't abort Beethovens. They aborted those who were likely to become criminals.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 17 July 2018 6:26:15 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
//They don't seem to be that prevalent or supported.//

They do seem to be mostly a developed world thing, and even then only in a few countries, although the tradition of leaving foundlings is as old as the hills. I think you kind of missed the point though. The point is that they do exist in some places... and women in those places still have abortions.

//If adoption was as affordable (it isn't)//

No, and it never will be. Children are expensive. Even if the government cover the costs of processing etc., people will still be left with the staggering expense of raising the kid. Government ain't gonna pay for that.

//then the worry about what life the child would have would be lessened//

Would it though? You have no idea where the child will end up. What if they get adopted by some paedo?

//and many of the arguments for abortion would lose weight.//

Yeah, I have my doubts about that.

//The only reasons why abortion has reasons is because we've distanced ourselves from recognizing the fetuses to be alive. To be unborn babies.//

Well, if it bothers you that much the best advice I can give you is to never have an abortion, then you won't have to live with the stain of that guilt on your conscience. Tell you what: if it makes you happy, I promise that I too will never have an abortion. I can't presume to make moral choices for anybody else, though. Not my place to do so.

I mean really, is there anything more pointless in all the world than a bunch of fellas sitting about discussing a medical procedure we're not anatomically equipped to undergo? You'll notice that the womenfolk seem to have better things to do with their time than devote page after page to futile debate on the morality of vasectomies. Sometimes you really have to wonder how we stayed the dominant sex for so long.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 17 July 2018 9:19:29 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
But while you're considering the morality of abortion, I invite you to consider the real-life, historical case of Romanian Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and his Decree 770 banning abortion.

"The direct consequence of the decree was a huge baby boom. Between 1966 and 1967 the number of births almost doubled, and the number of children per woman increased from 1.9 to 3.7. The generation born in 1967 and 1968 was the largest in Romanian history. Hastily, thousands of nursery schools were built.

...

In the seventies, birth rates declined again. Economic pressure on families remained, and people began to seek ways to circumvent the decree. Wealthier women were able to obtain contraceptives illegally, or bribed doctors to give diagnoses which made abortion possible. Especially among the less educated and poorer women there were many unwanted pregnancies. These women could only utilize primitive methods of abortion, which led to infection, sterility or even their own death. The mortality among pregnant women became the highest of Europe during the reign of Ceausescu. While the childbed mortality rate kept declining over the years in neighboring countries, in Romania it increased to more than ten times that of its neighbors.

Many children born in this period became malnourished, were severely physically handicapped, or ended up in care under grievous conditions, which led to a rise in child mortality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770

Is that really what you want?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 17 July 2018 9:20:10 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
//Just because abortion is chosen doesn't make it a moral and good choice.//

Yeah, you've said already. But obviously the women who choose abortion feel that it's the right choice for them or they wouldn't choose it, would they? And it is their choice, not yours.

I know that bothers you. I know you'd like to make their choices for them because you're obviously so much wiser and better and more knowledgeable about their lives than they are. But hey, what can you do? We live in modern liberal democracies. Women get to make their own choices. Not much I can see that you can do change that, short of fomenting rebellion and establishing the Republic of Gilead.

I mean, I guess you can just keep trying to persuade them to make different choices by ranting and raving about killing babies, but people have been doing that for ages and it doesn't seem to have had much effect. I dunno, it's like these women think for themselves these days and just don't care that much about your opinions. Somebody oughta put a stop to it.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 17 July 2018 11:57:25 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 Not_Now.Soon,

.

I have noticed that you are particularly fond of the use of metaphors in explaining your opinions. Allow me to do likewise on this occasion.

If we were to liken the production of a human being to the production of a brand-new model of a Formula I racing car for the forthcoming 2019 Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne, the process would proceed more or less as follows :

1 A good deal of time, money and effort would be spent in the preparation, before launching the actual production, i.e., conception and design.

2 Drafting of the manufacturing specifications

3 Production of all the constituent parts of the automobile

4 Reception of all the components from the various suppliers

5 The chassis : The car is constructed from the ground up (and out). The frame forms the base on which the body rests and from which all subsequent assembly components follow. The frame is placed on the assembly line and clamped to the conveyer to prevent shifting as it moves down the line. From here the automobile frame moves to component assembly areas where complete front and rear suspensions, gas tanks, rear axles and drive shafts, gear boxes, steering box components, wheel drums, and braking systems are sequentially installed

6 The body : The floor plan is the largest body component to which a multitude of panels and braces will subsequently be either welded or bolted

7 The paint : After the shell leaves the paint area it is ready for interior assembly

8 Interior assembly : After passing through this section the shell is given a water test to ensure the proper fit of door panels, glass, and weather-stripping. It is now ready to mate with the chassis

9 Mate (final assembly) : The chassis assembly conveyor and the body shell conveyor meet at this stage of production. Once the mating takes place the automobile proceeds down the line to receive final trim components, battery, tires, anti-freeze, and gasoline.

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 18 July 2018 1:56:08 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
.

(Continued …)

.

10 End of production : The vehicle is complete (but remains to go through a long series of trials and tests before final delivery and green light).
.

This is a very carefully planned and prepared operation. Abortions typically take place for unplanned, accidental pregnancies. Women – many of whom are single – find themselves, alone, in the process of producing a “formula 1 racing car” which they had not expected.

It is not surprising that many of them seek to abandon the process before it is too advanced.

Formula 1 manufacturers, using their cars from the previous season as a basis, can produce a new racing car in about the same time as it takes a woman to produce a human being, i.e, 9 months – which is why I chose this metaphor.

It seems difficult to imagine that they can produce anything resembling a racing car until they reach stage 5 of the manufacturing process.

That indicates that there can be no racing car (or “baby”) for the first 3 months (one third of the manufacturing process or gestation period). Prior to that, there is nothing there except manufacturing specifications and material to make a car or “baby”.

There is neither car nor “baby”.

In Europe, the limit varies from 10 weeks from the woman’s last menstrual period, in countries such as Slovenia and Croatia, to 18 weeks in Sweden.

The average time limit in Europe is 12 weeks (3 months).

In the UK abortions are permitted up to 24 weeks of pregnancy if there is a risk of “physical or mental health” for the woman or her children.

The limit in Australia varies per state and territory. Abortion is a criminal offence in NSW. Queensland is currently preparing a 22-week limit.

In my opinion, all states and territories in Australia should adopt similar limits.
.

There is absolutely nothing immoral about having an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy, nor within the first 24 weeks if there is risk of “physical or mental health” for the woman or her children.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 18 July 2018 5:28:24 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
To Banjo Paterson.

I appreciate your outline of building a formula 1 race car to being pregnant. However there are some differences to note. In the first phase of building the race car is the preparation. If this is like a pregnancy, then this can be compared to people trying to have a child. Even the struggle of multiple attempts, and seeking pregnancy kits, or doctors visits to see if there is an issue. As well as parenting plans to make sure they are prepared before they try to get pregnant. This could overlap phase 1 and 2 of the race care comparison.

However there is one significant difference between the race car, and a similar phase of abortion (instead of planned pregnancy). Many of the instances of abortion aren't about a change of heart to have a baby, but that it was unplanned. Thus the first step in preparation might be compared to receiving in a will the plans for building a formula 1 car and being asked to build it in the will of someone who's passed on. From this point on it might be considered similar to an abortion passed on the intention of phase one.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 19 July 2018 2:55:51 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
(Continued)

A second difference is that when building a formula 1 car, it's known the intent from the beginning. However in pregnancies the time it's discovered ranges from woman to woman. Some realize it early from a missed period. Others it might take a sever weeks to a few months. And once it's discovered, that's when decisions begin to be made.

A third difference is that a fetus growth is more like a plant growth then it is like a car being built. If you google ultra sound pictures by the week can see that the fetus shows characteristics of a baby very early on. I'd say as early as 6 or 7 weeks. Phase 1-5 are already in process well before it 's discovered that your pregnant with a new formula 1 race car.

With that in mind, I would say it is arbitrary to give a date to allow abortions by how finished the fetus is to a newborn baby. The fetus is a baby from very early on. (Though it's not yet born, you can see it as a baby in it's growth).
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 19 July 2018 2:56:45 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
Toni Lavis. If it bothers you that I'm responding to the three people still in the conversation trying to justify abortion. What can I say about that? Perhaps it's an inconvenience to hear a continual debate, and so you count it as and and raving. So far I've heard many ways to say it's the woman's choice, but nothing to justify killing through abortion. So perhaps instead of it being ranting and raving, it could just be a point that has remained unaddressed and still stands true.

As for choosing abortion being the justification of abortion. Consider choosing anything else that is harmful. Would it be justified if a person chose theft? Chose murder? Chose rape? Chose adultery? Chose drug addiction? Chose to lie under oath to a court?

Just choosing an action doesn't justify it to be right. Many actions are wrong and considered wrong by the laws of the land to punish. But if it wasn't illegal does that action or that choice automatically become right and moral? A moral choice? If so what are your thoughts on honor killings in the countries that allow a family member to kill their sister or their daughter because of having sex or being raped?

Abortion is still killing. And it is seen as the only solution to a wide variety of social issues. This shows we are a lazy people that justify killing the next generation instead of seeking to correct many of the social issues the next generation (or their mothers) would be exposed to. Call me heartless and mock me for holding to my position, but so far I've addressed these issues in a conversation that starts out from an article focused on criticisms of abortion. Many of the points addressed are ignored. Then if we talk about them more we are accused of ranting and raving? So be it.

(Continued)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 19 July 2018 3:03:16 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 are 2 quotes worth mentioning from the article.

"It seems impossible to refuse the conclusion that the foetus is a child, ie a potentially self-aware human being and that it may not be disposed of as passive tissue or as animal life. These are not difficult arguments. While it is usual to dismiss pro-lifers as irrational religionists it seems to me that irrationality is more descriptive of the pro-abortion position."

.....

"Having said this, no one wants to return to back-yard abortions and death by haemorrhage or sepsis. It occurs to me that we support many people in our society, the unemployed, the disabled, the elderly and the dying we do not support women who find themselves pregnant and do not have the finances, the life skills or have not completed their education? We do not do this because we are still captive to a morality that labels unwed mothers as irresponsible sluts, their children as bastards and both a liability on social welfare. But these women and girls, their children and their fathers are members of our community. The child has devoted grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles and maybe even siblings. By not giving the parents adequate support so that educations can be completed and new families formed we drive many to seek an abortion because there is no other option. For many, particularly if they go on later to produce families, the lost child will haunt them."
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Thursday, 19 July 2018 3:05:41 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
//If it bothers you that I'm responding to the three people still in the conversation trying to justify abortion. What can I say about that?//

Not 'bothers' so much as 'amuses'.

//This shows we are a lazy people that justify killing the next generation instead of seeking to correct many of the social issues the next generation (or their mothers) would be exposed to.//

Whatever, dude. Women who have abortions are all pure evil and you're such an unimpeachable moral authority that if you say it's wrong, it's wrong, damnmit! Happy now?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 19 July 2018 6:14:17 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
Dear NNS,

I do not accuse you of ranting or raving. I think you sincerely have a position. However, you use words that are inaccurate.

You wrote: "It seems impossible to refuse the conclusion that the foetus is a child, ie a potentially self-aware human being and that it may not be disposed of as passive tissue or as animal life."

A foetus is not a child. Potentiality is not actuality. You can call the foetus a child and say it seems impossible to refute the conclusion that the foetus is a child, but the foetus is not a child. In order to be a child it has to be born and leave babyhood. It is a potentially self-aware human being, but that does not make it either a child or a self-aware human being. However, the woman who has the foetus within her is actually a self-aware human being. I think the wishes of a self-aware human being should take precedence over the fate of a potentially self-aware human being who does not have wishes. An abortion terminates pregnancy. Adoption is not a solution since there can be no adoption if pregnancy is terminated.

You, I, a foetus and an insect are animal life since we all are animals. An insect or a tree is not passive tissue. Anything that is alive is not passive tissue.

We both would like to do away with abortion, but I think we can't. We can reduce the number of abortions by sex education, provision of contraceptives and instruction in their use. That can promote casual sex, and you oppose casual sex.

I am glad you do not want to bring back the backyard butcher, but do you think casual sex is an evil? You have already stated that you think abortion is an evil. If you think casual sex is an evil which evil do you think is the greater evil, casual sex or abortion?
Posted by david f, Thursday, 19 July 2018 6:41:49 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

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