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 > The case of the violinist and the fetus > Comments

The case of the violinist and the fetus : Comments

By Helen Pringle, published 22/2/2005

Helen Pringle argues that even if the fetus is a person, there are still good arguments for allowing abortion.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
“And a law outlawing abortion would hence effectively require of women as a class what is required of no other class of persons in our society. For that reason, such a law would be a discriminatory imposition on the autonomy of women as a class.”

Highly debateable, if not totally incorrect.

If the woman does have the baby, then who normally pays child support. The mother?

If the father pays child support, then who has most of the say, (if not complete say), in how that money is spent. The mother?

If the child is born, and the father does have some contact with the child, then who normally acts as the gatekeeper of that contact. The mother?

If the father wants the child to be born, then who has final say in whether or not the child is aborted. The mother?

If the father makes a commitment to have full custody of the child after it is born, then can he stop the abortion from occurring and so preserve the child’s life?

Finally, just how many women “do” seek counselling, or “do” discuss the matter with their doctors, or “do” discuss the matter fully with the father, before deciding to have an abortion? Do the majority of women do this, or is this just a myth?
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 12:37:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the Article - the voilinist analogy is accurate / appropriate.

Who has authority to tell any other person how their body will be used?

Who is most intimately involved -

the ranks of Pro-Life, pursuing what they see as a moral issue

or

the Pregnant woman herself - for whom the ProLife "moral issue" is an "intimate and personal issue" and whose sense of morality may not concur with the extremes of PRoLife?

What sort of "authority" is it that tells someone else they will suffer a pregnancy against their will?

No "authority" which I will ever be subordinated to.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 1:17:21 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
Firstly, let me say that I am not opposed to abortion, except late term.

The analogy to the violinist is a bit weak, especially so if applied to third trimester babies. Firstly a pregnant woman can hardly be compared to a kidnap victim. The woman must have taken some action to become pregnant in the first place (excepting of course, rape etc.)

The violinist would die without the use of the "victims" (charming to equate pregnancy with victimhood) circulation system. After a certain period of gestation a fetus can survive without the mother. So using this example if the violinist reaches a stage where he could survive without the circulation system of another it's still OK to vacuum out the contents of his skull.

Thirdly, if nature was allowed to take it's course with the violinist, he would die with no help from anyone else. If nature was allowed to take its course with the fetus, it would live. The violinist requires active intervention to live, the fetus requires active intervention to die.

The abortion of a bunch of cells is one thing, the killing of a fully formed, living human being who could survive independantly of the mother is quite another.
Posted by bozzie, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 1:59:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins,
To answer your questions and pose some of my own.
1. Child support is payed by the state or the father or some other party. How does that oblige the mother to carry the child? Who says it is the expense that underpins the decision to abort.

2.The guardian/carer of the child probably decides how the money is spent. How does this oblige the mother to carry the child? Who says it is the prospect of shared power on spending decisions that underpins the decision to abort.

3.Child access is agreed between the parents and if not is determined by the Family Court. How does this oblige the mother to carry the child? Who says sharing access underpins the decision to abort.

4.If the father wants the child to be born and the mother wants to abort, the pregnancy is aborted. So what? That is the challenge of life mate, to find some nice girl who wants to have your children. Otherwise we would all rock up to Elle's place. You want her to have your children, by her some flowers and take your chances but how is she obliged to do that? You have to earn it.

5. Full custody of the child after birth? Ditto above.

6.Finally, who the mother discusses the decision with is her business. Why must she discuss it with anyone in partiular. I am sure Tony Abbott would like them to discus it with their priest. I wish John Howard would discuss global warming with me but I guess he just does not rate/trust my opinion. Getting the ear of someone has to be earned. So she does not seek a certain party's opinion, how does that oblige the mother to carry the child?

Or am I missing something.
Posted by Bob B, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 2:00:44 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
Bob,

In this article, the author did not mention fathers once, and this is completely typical of hundreds of similar articles that are being currently written, that consider fathers irrelevant also.

Many of the authors of these articles are being paid out of the taxpayer’s pocket, and many of them have installed themselves into places such as universities, where they can more readily influence the minds of the young.

A general belief in some, that fathers are irrelevant becomes highly important when many issues are being debated, and these issues are not just limited to the abortion debate.

Fathers are being considered irrelevant in many areas, but ironically, (or perhaps totally hypocritically), the people who often consider fathers as being irrelevant, are also very adamant that there should be “gender equality” within society
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 2:09:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"To require that a woman carry an unborn child to term is to demand something that is required of no other person in our society: the involuntary use of her body by another."

I disagree. It demands of them that which is demanded of EVERY other person in society: thou shall not kill.

"This way of looking at questions of abortion clarifies that a demonstration of the personhood of the fetus would not entail that abortion should be outlawed."

Wrong again. As per above we don't kill other people.

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure NSW has introduced legislation making it basically manslaughter/murder if someone injures a pregnant women resulting in the foetus' death. So it's an offence to harm a foetus when the women wants it, but legal to kill the foetus via an abortion when she doesn't. This is getting a bit too relativistic for my likings.
Posted by Josh, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 5:46:18 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
Interesting (and at the same time, somehow boring), to read that females should not have to use their bodies or be subjected to any such use if they do not agree, or agree but then change their mind.

Similarly, non-female people earning an income using their body, should not be forced to forfeit any such exertion, or rental, to no other person or society in general, or for their own good such as services they may receive in return, especially if they change their mind part of the year through.

Sure, the 9 month variable is not part of the male equation, but over the 18 years, their bodies are used just as much, and never do they earn equal say. Financially support a child for at least the next 18 years, after they’ve had no say in the matter? No way!

What obligation should women have to any other stake holder in the pregnancy equation?

The state? None?
Sexual partner, or husband? None?
Late-term foetus, that could survive without the mother? None?

Well said Bozzie and Josh.
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 10:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins - you seem to be taking this argument very personally. I assume you've had a bad experience. If so, I'm sorry. My partner has had a similar one. But I still don't see how you can possibly use examples like this to somehow argue that men can veto a woman's right to an abortion. It's fairly simple: if you are opposed to a woman aborting a pregnancy then discuss it before you have sex. Simple.

And Bozzie - you should read the whole argument before declaring it "weak". The violinist is a first example. Thompson then goes on to debate the issue of knowledge. Is using contraception enough to make you an innocent "victim" if said contraception fails etc...

Nowhere does Thompson say killing is OK. It is more subtle than that: that there is no other situation in which the state forces its citizens to keep another person alive - and that pregnancy is no different. None of it is an argument about whether one SHOULD have an abortion, only that governments don't have a right to forbid it.
Posted by Amanda, Tuesday, 22 February 2005 11:16:09 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
Amanda

Your comment: "None of it is an argument about whether one SHOULD have an abortion, only that governments don't have a right to forbid it."

Surely all recent discussion is to explore the moral issue of whether or not it is a right act to abort a foetus wilfully and where it is found not a right act, whether it is right for the state to support it. This a fair discussion in a social/liberal democracy that has its foundations, its tap roots, in Judeo-Christian moral law and tradition that recognises the dignity of all human life and its need for support and enhancement through all its stages.

The article's argument that no life that depends on another is worthy of safe guarding and protection is chilling. Are we not all dependent on others in a loved life, only from which a loving life can proceed and act?

It is my view that the abortion act has a life inhibiting effect for all human entities engaged, be they active or passive in it. So no matter what material benefit is attained in the act by some, the loss of being, wholly or in part, is experienced by all.

The information needs to be gleaned and disseminated, and a social discussion promoted.

It is also my view that there should be no statute to proscribe abortion as a life inhibiting act as there are none against other life inhibitors of our culture. But the state should not fund and underwrite it.

Let the people with such passionate purpose in support of choice establish a mutual support fund. Let them emulate the millions of people who contribute tens of millions of dollars yearly in enhancing peoples' life through care and support networks for those on the edge in our society. They should not be requiring all taxpayers to participate in an act that is regarded as so wrong at the personal level.

MJB
Posted by MJB, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 12:49:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thomsons analogy fails miserably to show that the legality killing of an unborn human child is irrespective of its personhood. Clearly, it falls short of a useful analogy for abortion in 3 areas.
1) The kidnapped victim is forced into situation against their will. Clearly then, the analogy can only apply in rape cases, not abortion as a whole.

2) There is a difference between action and inaction in law, even in regards to life and death. The violinist would die from the kidney ailment if you disconnected, not from a direct killing, which is what abortion is.

3) The analogy uses artificial situations, where if the violinist is left without artificial intervention, they would die. The baby, left to nature would continue to be fine.

The tissue/organ donation analogy only addresses the first problem (point 1) and so still fails to be a good analogy.

Also, note that the state requires tissue donation in certain circumstances (Blood tests etc)

Finally, with regards to classes and rights, Helen seems to be happy to force a class of persons (I.e. the unborn child) to be discriminated against by allowing them to be killed for convenience. No other class in society is subjected to this.

More comments by me can be read on http://alangrey.blogspot.com
Posted by Grey, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 11:12:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amanda,

I have noted your “assumptions” regards myself, but they are unsupported by evidence and mean little to me.

The author has left out fathers in this article on abortion, which is a sign that she considers fathers to be irrelevant.

There are no fathers in the article, but the author has incorporated a violinist instead, although a violinist is very esoteric when it comes to abortion.

The incorporation of the violinist into the article, may have been done to try and obscure the fact that very little research has actually been carried out into abortion in this country, and few accurate facts have been established. When it comes to abortion, much has become obscure, and many facts and much information is not available, or not made widely known.

As far as fathers go, they are relevant, as it takes both a man and a woman for a child to be conceived, and sexual intercourse has to be quite frequent between the two for a child to be conceived. Conception or pregnancy due to irregular sexual intercourse (eg a one night stand), or due to such things as rape is not that likely, and some have estimated it to be less than a 1% chance.

The father is just as relevant as the mother, but leaving out fathers, (or regarding them as just sperm-donors or pay-packets etc), does not help to solve the many problems involving abortion. Instead it does make people become very suspicious of academics that indulge in such exercises, as those academics are showing considerable gender bias, and a considerable lack of respect for both male and female rights.

Australian academics are being paid at some of the highest rates of pay in the world. See. “Big bucks? It's all academic” at …http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/wireless/story/0,8262,7-12191805,00.html

But should these academics and researchers be paid a lot of taxpayer’s money to be biased in some way, or to try and hide or obscure relevant facts and information?

I don’t think so, and that is my argument regards this author and her article.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 1:25:59 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
Judith Jarvis Thomson's infamous violinist analogy is totally discredited. Doris Gordon of Libertarians For Life annihilates her arguments in her article http://www.l4l.org/library/thomviol.html "Abortion and Thomson's Violinist: Unplugging a Bad Analogy". Read it and learn.
Posted by jaxxen, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 1:43:09 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
First let’s not confuse what is legal and what is moral.

I’ve heard this one before concerning blood was that you also Helen?

How about this analogy on the same principle.

Two women and a baby are stuck on a desert island with no hope of rescue for several months. The mother with the baby is dry while it just happens that the other is still lactating. There are no suitable local foods for the baby on the island. The lactating mother hates breast feeding and decided that since given the above analogy she doesn’t have to do anything, she won’t feed the baby and it dies.
What would say to that woman Helen?

It is a sticky situation concerning where to draw the line with positive rights, if I walk by a drowning child but because no laws says I have to help , what sort of moral person am I? What one person thinks is reasonable another can think not.

BTW I have to confess that I’m an ethical relativist I don’t think either side is absolutely ‘right’ but that’s another story.
Posted by Neohuman, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 3:18:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To my mind, abortion is not a 'rights' issue. It is an issue of power and individual autonomy.

The reasons offered for or against appear as self serving rationalisations. They are all irrelevant and tend to distract the central matter of importance.

Its all about power. If you have the physical power to advance your own self interest ahead of someone else who does not have enough power to resist you, then you prevail. The idea of the state or the morally sanctimonious intervening in behalf of the weak, is mere rationalisation for doing that which they purportedly detest, namely the forceful coercion of another. If they believe, as they claim, to be defending the rights of the weak (unborn) and against the coercive power of the parent, then who will protect the weak (parent) from the coercive imposition of the state?

The state has no place interfering in what people do with their own bodies... abortions, suicide, embibing un-healthy substances, etc.

Then again, getting the state to give up its dependence on control is a bit like getting a heroin addict to give up the land of nod.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 3:48:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
trade215, have you ever considered that maybe there might be just a little more at stake here than just the temporary and partial loss of control of the woman's body? There is a child's life at stake here.

As for the right to control one's body argument, that is too easily defeated. We all have a right to control our bodies yes, but the right to control one's body is a CONDITIONAL, not an unconditional right. It is conditional upon one not using their body in a way that violates someone else's rights.

For example, I have a right to control my body, but that doesn't mean I have a right to sneak into your house in the middle of the night and cut your throat. I still have an OBLIGATION not to take your life, and parents still have an OBLIGATION not to kill their children.

As the child in the womb is not a tresspasser and has effectively been forced into the womb of it's mother without giving any consent, then it simply has a right to be there, as it NEEDS to be there in order to survive.

The abortion issue is really about obligation and the principle not to endanger. If you endanger somebody's life you have a moral obligation to ensure that life survives.
Posted by jaxxen, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 4:01:26 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
Wow.

It seems to me that there are a whole group of people here who refuse to understand subtle argument. Ignore the fact that there is a man who plays the violin... any analogy brakes down eventually. It is about the duty not to kill vs the responsibility to keep alive.

The point is simple: sometimes contraception fails. A fetus is the result. A woman has a right to choose not to let it continue to grow so she has it removed. This is not the same as slitting a person's throat. It is saying "I am unwilling or unable to keep this fetus alive". Now - we could make the law that says if you don't use contraception then you can't have an abortion, but if you do, and it fails then you can. Oh - and Timkins. Go straight back to biology class. Sperm doesn't build up until there's eventually enough to make a baby. You only need one go.

Perhaps one day we will get the technology to have the fetus removed and placed in the body of Tony Abbott et al. then this will no longer be an issue and all the nice caring pro-lifers out there can be pregnant instead. Until then, there is only one issue. My uterus is none of your business. Do what you like with your own, and leave me to choose what does and does not stay in mine.
Posted by Amanda, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 7:39:52 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
Amanda

Your case of "its my uterus and I'll do what I want with it" is rather purile.

You are enjoying a life in which you have inherited safeguards for and respect of your person. Right throughout it there are social interactions where your life is protected and enhanced. Of course there are diminutions, ranging from a nasty word from someone, through to final death, arising from the state of the physical, natural world as well as the actions of commission and omission of people who have no care of others in their pursuits, legal or otherwise.

Your freedom has been earned by social developments for millenia that enhance life. And usually earned through the blood of activists being shed by the powerful who sought to keep control of their world.

The argument that it is my uterus and I'll do what I want is the adoption of a power play. It involves disposal of another to stay in control of my life. I would think that the recent tsunami would have laid to rest such arrogance of our "controlling" western culture.

Life is so precious, in all of its potentiality and ever present vulnerability. In truth, none of us should inhibit it or diminish it, especially for our personal convenience.
Posted by MJB, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 9:18:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amanda,
I see very little that is “subtle” about abortion. http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/

Abortion is a health problem, but the longer people try and obscure this health problem by leaving out relevant persons such as fathers, and replace them instead with violinists, then the less likely the health issues will ever be solved.

Bring on the “debate” regards abortion, but that debate can be based on well researched facts and information, and not violinists.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 9:28:54 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
Like Amanda,for me,the key is that womans reproductive organs are the sole property of the woman and not some government or self serving "father" figure.The point that I think Amanda is trying to make is that our bodies are our own and hence, the uterus belongs to the woman and is not the starting point for the abortion debate. To give away the right of control over the body is to invite chaos. Science has given you all the choice to live or die and we embrace that.We have choice. We can take a life saving antibiotic or have surgery that saves us from death.We have those choices.The only area where the question of choice is being debated is with regards to the foetus,which at the point of most abortions,the foetus is essentially an unviable life.This is where the hypocrisy of the right to life movement bugs me. You have choice.You benefit from the choice that science has given you to live or die,but are insistent on taking that choice away from other women and use the name of the unborn foetus for your argument.
Posted by Miss Vegemite, Thursday, 24 February 2005 9:01:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Miss Vegemite ownership of our own body is only in principle as we cannot sell our body parts -yes I know that is legal not moral- or in most countries kill ourselves.

But even if we did have an overriding right to our bodies as in the violin analogy I think many Pro-lifers fail to see any fundamental difference or relevance in the right to life of a unborn human in whether the care of said child is provided by the uterus of the mother or by the parents after birth.

What of a case where both parents decide they don't want the child after birth. Should they have the right -they still own their own bodies- to call a doctor to kill the child?

It has no personhood nor is it capable of independent existence just as in pre birth.

BTW when talking of choices no choice is given to the father or fetus and highlights the hypocrisy of many Pro-choice advocates.

You want fathers to take responsibility for participating in the sexual act by forcing them to contribute financially. Yet you refuse to give them a choice in whether the child can live, nor hold yourselves accountable for that selfsame sexual act.

You want to keep your right to choose to take a life OK then give up your legal right to force fathers to pay child support in these situations.
Posted by Neohuman, Thursday, 24 February 2005 9:59:23 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
Re-iterating my central premise, l do not see this as a rights issue. Rights seem to get bandied about as incontravertible absolutes by all sides of any arguement that seek to justify competing interests. And they get used to coerce.

l fundamentally agree, that my body is mine. Resisting coercive impositions is not a right in my mind. Its a Truth that follows existence. l also agree, in principal, that l have an obligation to restrain the use of my body to the detriment of another. Until it does not suit my interests. In practical terms that does not work and contradicts exhibited human behaviour. In the fight for survival and its harsh reality, we do coerce others. It is the basis of conquest and the structure of civilization, the basis upon which we advance competing interests. The weight of numbers behind an aligned self interest has no implications upon the rational process by which we justify our interests in front of another. The weight of numbers is the weight of force. Coercive force applied against another.

We share the water until there isn't enough to go around. Then the trouble starts and 'use of my body' to the detriment of another begins. Its easy to 'do the right thing' in good times. When the bad times come is another matter.

The idea of not using my body to harm another, breaks down in self-defence, for example.

When push comes to shove, either l push or get shoved. Like retaining the ability to legally abort.

If you have power then you prevail. The rest happens in our heads.

If government chooses, they could prevail, until the next election at least. The pro-lifers could prevail, by influencing expectant mothers or by blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors. Your family might give you a dose of emotionally manipulative shame based therapy. You might evade or avoid the dictates of parliament and go somewhere where your behaviour is not punished and do what you want.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 24 February 2005 1:34:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJB
“Your case .. is rather purile.”

It a classic Pro-Life tactic. Denigrate and demean the view of the opposition by using florid and inappropriate language – ProLife believe they know what is best for us all – I would guess the woman who “owns the uterus” has a better idea of her circumstances than some unknown stranger

“Your freedom has been earned ...through the blood of activists being shed by the powerful who sought to keep control of their world.”

The blood of those “activists” was spilt pursuing the right of individuals to choose. Whether democratic elections or exercising sovereignty over ones body and choice to abort a pregnancy or not..

The powerful forces you mention - such as the various religious Priesthoods have shown, by their own corruption, that they are not fit to instruct people on any matter (that includes the Roman Catholics who are secretly behind many anti-abortion campaigns).

"The argument that it is my uterus .... I would think that the recent tsunami would have laid to rest such arrogance of our "controlling" western culture.”
OF course it is powerplay – it is individual power to decide on the matter of their own body. If the state were to decide – that makes us all slaves or vassals of the state.

“Life is so precious, in all of its potentiality and ever present vulnerability. In truth, none of us should inhibit it or diminish it, especially for our personal convenience.”

The difference between “Life” and “Existence” is the “right to choose our own destiny” – that means women choosing whether they will remain pregnant.

Do not denigrate the precious "right of individual choice and decision", which was earned by the blood of those past activists to presume it is a matter of “convenience” – a derogatory spin to denigrate one of the most important rights – the right of choice over our own bodies - up there with freedom of speech, free association and participation in public elections.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 24 February 2005 1:50:58 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
Col, your argument is fine up until the child can survive outside the womb. What about then? Fetus's are being aborted up to 32 weeks! One of my children was born at 28 weeks and the other at 32 and they're both fine and healthy with no problems whatsoever.

Abortion is fine up until the fetus can survive independantly of the mother, after that, it's just horrific. Surely it's not too much for the mother to make her decision to abort prior to this advanced stage? Have a read of this Bulletin article in relation to late term abortion. http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/38D1DECB2A1F2E05CA256E6C00087B8A
Posted by bozzie, Thursday, 24 February 2005 5:46:44 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
Col Rouge, you really are a rogue re your comment

""It a classic Pro-Life tactic. Denigrate and demean the view of the opposition by using florid and inappropriate language – ProLife believe they know what is best for us all – I would guess the woman who “owns the uterus” has a better idea of her circumstances than some unknown stranger""

It is you who has resorted to labelling. My choice of the word "puerile", as I should have spelt it, is a matter of judgement of the original comment based on the "it's my party I'll do want I want" genre. There is nothing demeaning or denigrating in it.

Col, re the rest of your comment, you have performed a mighty leap from the historical fact of a few people winning social freedoms for all to the fuzzy notion of self autonomy that has seaped out of the frivolous intelligensia into the expectations of an unreflective hoi polloi over the last 50 years. If you misunderstand that you simply prove the point.

MJB
Posted by MJB, Thursday, 24 February 2005 10:10:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I really like what Neohuman said in the last two paragraphs of the post.

This ownership argument is VERY WRONG. Whether it refers to the whole body, or just the uterus (or even the changing mind), the argument is unsustainable. There ARE valid reasons for abortion, but these aren’t it.

Next we know, it’s extended to late-term pregnancies, and beyond - ownership of children perhaps. We’re only just now starting to recognise serial murdering mothers, and we’re not quite sure what to do about it - http://smh.com.au/news/National/Mother-charged-with-murdering-four-children/2005/02/24/1109180004348.html

By extension, I hope that in 20 or 30 years time, we’re not arguing about this particular mother’s choice.
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 24 February 2005 10:50:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bossie – check the stats – the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Beyond that the "late pregnancy abortions" are usually performed because of a risk to mothers health.

MJB – Maybe you would care to challenge my points rather than just pontificate their origins or attempt to discount them with weasel word expressions like

“fuzzy notion of self autonomy that has seaped out of the frivolous intelligensia into the expectations of an unreflective hoi polloi over the last 50 years” (What a load of selfrighteous twaddle)

Fact – We are more autonomous than at any other time – nothing frivolous about it.

Do you believe the “frivolous intelligentsia” and “hoi polloi” should be allowed to express an opinion
or
Should the holding and expressing of "opinions" be a privilege reserved to a small group of sanctimonious know-all elitists, crippled by their overwhelming neurosis founded in group control issues, fear of abandonment and an inferiority complex?

Maybe you have something credible to say but thus far you have simply used “mumbo-jumbo” to deflect from giving a proper answer.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 24 February 2005 11:17:24 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
Abortion should be avoided as it seems to produce a lot of sadness , especially with late term ones and those forced on young women who have had an 'ACCIDENT', and get pressured into it by others,..... parents , friends, clinics etc . for these girls it seems hard for them to forget the life that has been lost .even their old boyfriends , long since gone and probably happily married with their own children will not feel at ease talking about these other parts of their lives usually.
it also would be interesting to know what judith jarvis thompson would do if her father informed her that the violinist she had attached was her long lost old mother .
with women in years gone by capable of having and losing many more children i shudder to think of the grief they must have experienced in the natural passing of life and babies , when men probably thought they owned their partner's uterus and women happily or later grudgingly accepted this but at a huge cost to them .
Death is a nasty business .
Posted by kartiya, Friday, 25 February 2005 12:55:51 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
Col Rouge - you do make me see red......

Peace be with you brother / sister.
Posted by MJB, Friday, 25 February 2005 7:04:11 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
Amanda, Miss Vegemite, Col Rouge and perhaps others.

It's great to participate in public debate, but first you need to listen to what people are saying.

Has anyone ever said, in the current debate, that the aim is to outlaw abortion? To "force" women to carry to term? To control women's uteri? These are figments of your imagination.

The current debate is one of concern at why so many Australian women have abortions. Anyone who has had an abortion will realise that it's not fun and games. Research shows clearly that abortion has bad outcomes for many women.

Try to look past the over-simplification sloganeering of "women's right to choose" and think about whether we really want abortion to be the most common surgical procedure performed on women. If women "choose" to abort cos they are too poor to have children, that's not good enough - give them more assistance. Nor is it good enough for women to have abortions because others tell them to, or threaten them. Nor if her boss will sack her if he finds out she's pregnant. Nor if there is no child care available at uni. Let's not stick our head in the sand and pretend these things don't happen.

As an example of a level-headed response, take Danna Vale, for instance. She's pro-choice, but she's worried and good on her. Bring on an inquiry into abortion, not to outlaw it, but to do better by women who are given the sole responsibility to "choose" abortion.
Posted by ruby, Friday, 25 February 2005 11:38:02 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
Col, I checked the stats and found this,

"There were 377 late-term (post-20 weeks) abortions performed in South Australia from 1998 to 2002. Of these 171 were for fetal abnormalities, 10 for a medical problem with the mother and 196 (52%) on "mental health"grounds. The "mental health" ground, provided for in South Australia’s abortion law which dates from 1969, is generally accepted to cover any psychosocial reason that is to allow effectively for abortion on request."
http://www.ksca.org.au/Action%20on%20Abortion.htm

Keep in mind that some of those "fetal abnormalities" mentioned could be for anything as trivial as a cleft palate.

I'm not talking about early abortion, my concern is with late term abortions.

Ruby has also raised some very interesting and valid points.
Posted by bozzie, Friday, 25 February 2005 12:27:47 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
Amanda, Miss Vegemite and others...

You keep insisting on this "right to control our bodies" argument, repeating that same pathetic, discredited slogan. Like too many women it seems, they think the universe evolves around them. I'm sorry to break it to you ladies, but such a right is a limited right, not one that transcends the rights of others to live their lives.

Furthermore, my argument is that a pregnant woman is liable and obligated to the child in her womb - she has effectively FORCED that life into that vulnerable position without it giving consent. Your argument Amanda, about failed contraception doesn't cut it - it's very well-known that contraception can fail.

If you choose to have sexual intercourse, you invite the consequences of that action - which may involve pregnancy. It doesn't MATTER if you wanted to get pregnant or not, the principle is simple - if you take a risk in life, you invite the consequences of that risk, whether you like the outcome or not. You (and the father) are still 100% responsible. The child in the womb is not. It has not aggressed against it's mother in any way - if the mother aborts then she is the one initiating the aggression and is therefore in the wrong. The pregnant woman becomes morally LIABLE to the unborn child, as she has CAUSED it's dependent situation.

There may be a clash between want the woman WANTS and what the child NEEDS, but there is no clash of RIGHTS. The child has the right to live, and the woman's right to control her body is conditional upon her not using it in ways that aggress against others.
Posted by jaxxen, Friday, 25 February 2005 1:00:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A lot of the abortion debate gets back to the the point that we live in an age where compared perhaps to previous eras, we are used to being in control of our own lives. People feel very comfortable feeling that they can have their cake and eat it too - that we can be the master of our own universe. People would desperately LIKE to be able to control their own fertility 100%. Women desperately WANT to be able to enjoy sexual intercourse, and not have to be pregnant if they don't want to be.

But the simple fact is, reality doesn't work that way. Nature and reality have not as yet bestowed a right to control fertility 100% upon humans, no matter how much we may WANT this right. Such a right doesn't objectively exist, because pregnancy still occurs as a CHANCE outcome from sexual intercourse. Claiming a "right to control my body no matter what" is just rigid, wishful thinking. People who support legal abortion-on-demand are in denial of reality, because they are claiming a right that is not derived from reality. Hence they have no credibility and they lose the debate.
Posted by jaxxen, Friday, 25 February 2005 1:02:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jaxxen, partly agree.

People can argue the ethics of abortion forever, but eventually such arguments will rarely limit the rate of unwanted pregnancies.

Similarly, attempts to side track the issues of abortion by introducing violinists, or by trying to hide facts and information, will rarely reduce unwanted pregnancies also.

In this article, the author mentions not one single fact regards abortion, but it is only through proper research and establishing facts, will solutions be found to reduce the problems of unwanted pregnancies and to reduce the number of abortions. Those solutions can involve such things as education programs, better forms of contraception etc, and of course fathers cannot be disregarded in all this.

Back to basics for the author of this article, if the author “does” have a sincere desire to reduce unwanted pregnancies and rate of abortion (but somehow I doubt it).
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 25 February 2005 1:36:50 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
Today I heard by 2050 the world pop. will be 9 billion.A 50% increase on to days pop.In 1970,it was 3 billion.We will destroy this planet fighting over food,energy and resources if we don't control our pop. growth.The war over energy has started in Iraq.There will be many more if we don't stop pop.growth.
WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT,THE SURVIVAL OF THE PLANET,OR OUR SHORT TERM PERSONAL GRATIFICATION? DO WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO FUTURE GENERATIONS?The morality of foetus killing will be irrelevant when future generations face survival.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 25 February 2005 7:13:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the right to autonomy over one's own body is no fundamental then what, exactly, is? All this debate over abortion may be fascinating for many of you, but try to imagine what you would do if the government decided that blood and organ donations were now compulsory. Imagine the lives that will be saved!!

Each person is free to make a choice about whether abortion is the right choice to make for themselves, and, if the father/ friends/ family have earned enough respect then they can be consulted too.

Outlawing abortion only belittles the gift that motherhood is. It's a great burden, but one that many choose to accept. It's all the more special because she doesn't have to.

And suggesting that perhaps women aren't taking this decision seriously enough right now is just as offensive. Don't patronise every woman in the country by saying that you are against abortion because you know better than the woman whose womb is carrying the fetus.

My body - my decision. If that right isn't valued highly then we need to stop pretending we live in a free nation.
Posted by Amanda, Friday, 25 February 2005 7:57:36 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
Arjay, Amanda,

Do you have any ideas on how to reduce unwanted pregnancies, without resorting to such things as abortion?
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 25 February 2005 8:10:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins ,it's called education or awareness,contraception and personal responsibility.Abortions in late pregnancy should never occur,because there are so many seeking adoption.We have a very self indulgent and hedonestic society and these are the consequences.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 25 February 2005 8:31:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bozzie – I am sure late term abortions are performed for a variety of reasons – because someone may abuse the process (as every process is abused) does not warrant banning it for those who have a legitimate reason and the incidence of late term as so few you need to look on a case by case basis which you and I cannot do – (do you want to ban all centrelink payments because someone rips is off ?)


Jaxxen – reality is “abortion in the first trimester on demand” IS THE LAW – I support it and I am “in denial” of nothing.


The fact is –
People in control (individual choice and individual responsibility) of their own destiny ultimately develop into more complete individuals for the greater benefit of society overall,
If individuals are repressed by rigid social or legal conventions (no choice and, thus, no individual responsibility), it works to the detriment of the individual and thus weakens society over all.

Please advise what authority you have to make decisions of people you have never met and whose circumstances you do not know. That you just dislike the idea or abortion is not a reason and neither is any “religious values” you may hold (because they are not universally supported)..


Arjay – your observation on population is chilling – but is not a justification for abortion. I agree with you, it is the most critical problem the humanity faces and of such magnitude that “abortion” does not really warrant a mention.


Amanda - I fully support your view - your body - your choice.
If we cannot exercise choice – life is reduced to mere existence and individuals to status of chattels or vassals.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 26 February 2005 9:27:25 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
Col
At last a real debate. What is freedom? What is it to be free? What are the threats to freedom? What has been the underlying foundations to the moral systems, the legal systems and their governance that have underpinned the development of our western liberal democracies? Has there really been a dark age between the ancient Greeks with their ideas and the enlightened thoughts of the 17/18/19/20/21st century thinkers?

If you can answer these without a single reference to the teachings of Jesus Christ, from which a human community like none other before or since has formed, then you are certainly of the Enlightenment's blind and disillusioned wandering the desert.

Col, you emphasise the individual and neglect the reality of the "group" As humans we are social beings. To be so, and as a consequence of being so, we develop customs, mores and rules. Your notion of society comprising self-autonomous individuals whose choice is exercised at the level of what they do according to their feeling in the situation, rather than how they act in accordance with a freely chosen and understood moral code, provides for a confused, unreflective society. A society where emotion rather than reason becomes the currency of thought and consequential response. Where are we today? Is this not the grist for the media's mill?

Human groups are best served by comprising freedom loving individuals infused with meaning, purpose and programme that is always underpinned by an abiding love in service to others. Now that is counter cultural. This freedom flows from the choice of living the teachings ( not rules) of Jesus Christ. As such it is a state of relationship that is open to all; whether in a paddy field, a foundry, an Emergency hospital ward, the Corporate Boardroom. I know this can be countered with stories of historical horror and contemporary red neck fundamentalists, and silly creationists. Alas, the human story. Yet this does not diminish the fundamental story of our western civilisation's formation that has been at the sharpest point of the leading arrow of the evolution process - the human. Wow!
Posted by MJB, Saturday, 26 February 2005 1:37:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,
I would agree that there needs to be better programs and methods developed to limit unwanted pregnancy, and so reduce the need for so much abortion. If there are programs and methods already in place, then they are obviously not very effective.

There can be better sex education programs and better forms of contraception, but personally I would have more faith in contraception rather than education, as education can become indoctrination if it is carried out by the wrong people.

For females:- contraceptive implants seem to be more effective than the oral contraception pill. For males:- there are some potential new forms of contraception that could be further developed with enough government support and backing (eg Risug at http://www.malecontraceptives.org/methods/risug_frame.html )

However for decades pro-choice groups and feminists have halted nearly all inquiry into abortion, and by so doing, they have halted or stalled research also, and much necessary information is now not available.

The author has not provided one fact regards abortion, nor has she given any suggestions or ideas on how to limit unwanted pregnancy in the first place, and that is highly typical of almost all pro-choice groups and of feminists. Big on mantra and indoctrination (eg. proclaiming that women have a right to have an abortion), but small on providing practical solutions to problems (eg, finding effective ways of stopping unwanted pregnancy in the first place).

There is also the emotional scaring that can often occur with women who have had an abortion. This can last a lifetime, but minimal research has been undertaken into this also.

Any further delays in carrying out proper research, and then developing improved ways to limit unwanted pregnancies in the first place, will only mean more unwanted pregnancies, and then more abortions, and each week nearly 2,000 abortions take place in Australia already (most of which are paid for by the taxpayer).

The author’s gender-biased ethics, (in leaving fathers out of the article and regarding them as irrelevant), is also another issue, as I believe she won’t solve too many social problems by that
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 26 February 2005 1:53:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJB
Re” . What is freedom?”

“Freedom is Responsibility -
It is the right of the individual to exercise choice in every aspect of their life and to live with the consequences of those choices” – Col Rouge


Re - “….without a single reference to the teachings of Jesus Christ…”

It is impertinent of you to presume your “interpretation / version” of the teachings of Jesus Christ is the same as mine. You have no knowledge to my Christian beliefs and I have no interest in yours.

We live in a secular world, your religious views have no authority over people not of your particular denomination or sect and nor should they. Ordinary people fought long and hard to remove the jackboot of the inquisition and the threat of burning as a heretic from the multiple affronts on humanity as used by the “clergy” of old to enforce their absolute will on society.


Re “Col, you emphasise the individual and neglect the reality of the "group" …..”

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once declared. "There's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families."

I had the privilege of voting for Margaret Thatcher and agree with her.

I refer you to my already posted views – in essence, any and every society is only as strong as the individuals who comprise it.

We are sovereigns of our own bodies. We are not the chattels of society, church or state.


As for the rest –

When you are prepared to show me the “authority” or “credentials” you have to impose your choice / will on people you do not know, then I will be happy to listen. However, if you try to invoke the name of God or Jesus Christ I will simply do the same and we will be at stalemate.

Finally –

Life without Choice is mere Existence – "Choice" is too important.

I can never and will never take the path of appeasement and thus cannot accept “existence” as the compromise alternative to “Life”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 26 February 2005 5:56:23 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
Col,
There can be “choice” for some in society, but when it comes to abortion, “choice” is a farce.

There are nearly 2,000 taxpayer funded abortions occurring each week in Australia, but the taxpayer has minimal say in any of this. Even if a member of the taxpayer public wants information from government about abortion, they will likely receive very few answers.

Even senators can't get much information about abortion. For example, Senator Harradine has asked for more information about abortion, but received very little. See…http://www.acl.org.au/home/browse.stw?article_id=2037 . Either government is holding back on that information, or government does not know the information itself.

While enormous amounts of taxpayer’s money has been spent on abortion, there has been minimal research actually carried out into abortion, and comparatively very little money spent on identifying more reliable methods of contraception, (which have not been very reliable at all. see… http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_843232.htm )

Eventually, because so much about abortion has been ignored or suppressed, and because so little has been done over the years to reduce the chances of unwanted pregnancy occurring in the first place, the rates of abortion have hardly decreased.

In reality, abortion is the only choice for many. There is no other choice, and about the only people who would really gain from the present rates of abortion, would be the operators of abortion clinics, and maybe some professional feminists.

The author made no mention of any of the above in her article, and choose to talk about violinists instead. Should there be any trust in such authors?
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 26 February 2005 9:14:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am the author of this piece. Might I point out that it is not the case that information from government(s) about abortion is scant on the ground and it is not the case that even senators can't get the information they request on this matter. There is a great deal of information on abortion publicly available, and it is accessible in the usual way, by reading, research, etc etc. In the case of abortion, some of this hard work has been done extremely well by the Parliamentary Library, in Research Brief no. 9 2004–05 "How many abortions are there in Australia? A discussion of abortion statistics, their limitations, and options for improved statistical collection" by Angela Pratt, Amanda Biggs and Luke Buckmaster, at
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb09.htm
The footnotes to th ebrief are also good sources of further information. I am afraid that I find it disingenuous for MPs and others to claim that they only want to know how many abortions there are, with no intention of restricting access to abortion. We have a rough sense of how many abortions there are -- and it appears that if anything the rate of (taxpayer-funded) abortions is falling, even if not significantly. But whether there is one or many abortions, I don't see how that affects the principle of autonomy at issue. I have written on these questions elsewhere. Thank you for your comments and a lively debate! Helen
Posted by isabelberners, Sunday, 27 February 2005 12:42:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins – "There can be “choice” for some in society, but when it comes to abortion, “choice” is a farce."

If you think exercising "choice" on the matter of abortion is a "farce", I can only presume, the "humour" of such a farcical situation is because you have never faced it seriously in your own circumstances.

I believe such decisions are of such magnitude and consequence that many are overwhelmed by it - so be it -

The Reality is it is a serious decision with serious consequences - but it remains a decision which most significantly effects only one person / decision maker - the woman herself.


“Tax payers objecting to tax payer funded abortions” – sorry - that is pure "bunkum" reasoning

It is the same puerile argument used by the sort of mindset which demands that because they are a "pacifist" they do not want their "taxes" used on military spending –

It would be like me demanding my "taxes" should, somehow, not be used to employ an Equal Opportunity Commissioner (An Office which I fervently disagree with but, as a tax payer, in some way one which I finance).

You have missed the point entirely if you base your argument regarding abortion on government fiscal policy.

Helen – “But whether there is one or many abortions, I don't see how that affects the principle of autonomy at issue” –

I concur completely –

Autonomy of the individual and that individuals right to “choose” ,on the matter of abortion is an entirely different topic to a numeric outcome resulting from that right of decision, as represented by any number of abortions, be it sero, one or a million.
Many thousands of women have exercised their “Right to Choose” and have chosen to proceed with their pregnancies – and good luck to them all – Their Bodies, Their Choices
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 27 February 2005 1:44:28 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
Isabel, Col

Almost all articles written on the rights of a woman to have an abortion are written to a similar formula. These articles, (like this one), rarely present no medical, scientific or technical facts at all. Instead these articles are normally based on quite generalised, vague or esoteric concepts, and they normally achieve “nothing” of any tangible or constructive use in reducing the rates of unwanted pregnancy to start with.

We have an abortion rate that has hardly declined at all, (eg. from 1 in 3 women in the 1930’s, to 1 in 4 currently), and some women have a number of abortions throughout their life.

With modern female contraception (such as long term contraceptive implants under the skin), then a woman has nearly a 100% guarantee of not falling pregnant unintentionally. ( see…http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/femalehormone4.html)

Theoretically, the rate of abortion should be much lower than what it currently is. In fact, it should be theoretically close to zero, instead of nearly 2,000 abortions per week, or just over 20 % of all pregnancies.

Modern technology has now presented women with very few reasons why they should fall pregnant unintentionally. Perhaps many women and feminists do not like that.

Abortion is a ghastly business, (see...http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/ )and articles that only consider the autonomous right of women to have an abortion are of minimal practical or constructive use in establishing methods of actually reducing the rates of unwanted pregnancy.

If anything, formula type articles on abortion only perpetuate our current rates of abortion, and our current systems of abortion. Dozens of such articles have been written for decades, and the essential and important question must now become “why”?

Exactly what type of systems are these formula type articles trying to perpetuate?
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 27 February 2005 2:07:38 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
Amanda and Col, you are simply displaying your prejudice. You care only about what the woman wants, whilst callously disregarding the rights of the child. To an objective observer there are 3 parties to consider in the abortion dilemma - father, mother and child. Of these 3, it is the CHILD's rights who are paramount as it's the CHILD who stands to lose the most from the dilemma, and as the child hasn't caused the situation.

Whilst the mother may stand to lose her liberty (temporarily and partially) for 9 months (or less), the child stands to lose it's entire life, plus it's liberty - permanently. Furthermore, a pregnant woman has morally SACRIFICED the right to control her womb to the child, as she has FORCED the child into womb dependency. Whether a child is in the cot or in the womb, parents still OWE care to their children - they may not kill them because THEY decide THEY don't "want" them. The issue here is parental obligation. Parents OWE their children care.

If a woman has a right to control her body, then a child has a right to control IT'S body, which means it has a right to grow and develop as it's body designs and directs. If a woman aborts, she is initiating aggression against the child, violating both it's body and it's right to life.
Posted by jaxxen, Sunday, 27 February 2005 4:17:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The proper role of the state is always to PROTECT THE INNOCENT FROM AGGRESSION - not to simply side with the strong against the weak. Do people seriously think a pregnant woman can always be trusted to act in the best interests of an unborn child? Surely people are capable of understanding that there is enormous potential for a conflict of interest in giving a woman the "choice".

And what is this "choice" we speak of? It is really a choice to AVOID RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY. Imagine if we applied that across the board, giving everyone a "choice" to NOT be liable... I break Amanda's window - should I have a "choice" to not be liable?

Any time the state does not act to protect the innocent and simply allows people to do as they please, it will be the strong who will prevail and the weak who will be exploited. Giving a woman the "choice" is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Abortion is about the only area in civil law where the state is siding with an aggressor against a victim.
Posted by jaxxen, Sunday, 27 February 2005 4:19:24 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
Jaxxen – “displaying Prejudices”?

Please enlighten me to my supposed “prejudices” – So I may challenge them individually – I resent your cowardly use of innuendo and conjecture to characterise my view as “prejudiced”, simply because it differs from your own (prejudicial) view.

The “rights of the fetus / embryo” are vested in the Mother and are, anyway, subordinate to the rights of the mother, as the individual with cognitive ability and the priority of discretion over her own body.

As for your second post – “Do people seriously think a pregnant woman can always be trusted to act in the best interests of an unborn child?”

Your sense of “trust” does not matter. Since you are in complete and total ignorance of the circumstances the mother and fetus face, I know for a fact the individual mother will have a better idea than you about what to do.

All you are doing is ranting on about how you “feel”, with total disregard to the ability of the mother to make her own decisions.
That those decisions may not conform to what you demand is just tough – get used to it –

Alot of “decisions” people would make, I find completely inane and stupid – like those who demand strangers be forced, by criminal sanction, to obey their commands as Pro-Life advocates.

I suggest stop mincing around with ideas of the rights of the pre-born – the pre-born is indivisible from the mother and thus differs from the “new born” or “infant”, which has achieved “individuality” and “individual rights” through the process of birth.

2 Questions

Identify what right YOU have to enforce your will in a matter which, at worst, irritates your sensibilities, over the will of the person intimately involved in the outcome of the decision ?

Advise us, if you made abortion “illegal”, what sentence will you hand down on the “criminal woman” who dared disobey it ? Oh and please do, please, supply some historic precedent for your opinion – remembering abortion was “illegal” for around 100 – 150 years before it was de-criminalised.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 27 February 2005 7:13:01 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
Jaxxen, Col. Guys

I think it best to further analyses the article, and then look at actual facts.

The author tries to infer that women have minimal ability to control their own reproductive systems, and therefore they need ready access to abortion. However, all that was in the past, and certainly not now.

Female contraception is now readily available, extremely cheap, safe, and reliable. It gives maximum control to the woman, not minimal control at all.

A woman can now spend 15 minutes in a local doctor’s surgery, and for $20 she can have a contraceptive implant that will last up to 5 years. This type of contraception is reversible, safe and 99% reliable. She can use other forms of contraception as well, so combined they would reduce her chances of becoming pregnant to 0 %. (ie. no pregnancy “guaranteed”)

(see… http://www.betterhealthchannel.com.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Contraception_choices_explained?open)

So instead of women having minimal control of their reproductive systems as the author infers, women can have maximum control, as they have ready access to highly effective taxpayer funded contraception. The necessity for taxpayer funded abortion should be very minimal.

Then why is there so much abortion? That is a good question that still remains unanswered.

The article also contains characteristics of feminist literature.
Eg
- It does not contain technical or scientific data (so it becomes more difficult to question)
- It portrays males negatively (eg. the male is portrayed as a being a kidnapper who uses the woman’s body for his own purposes)
- It does not incorporate fathers (so they become irrelevant)
- It portrays women as being oppressed (eg the woman is portrayed as being a type of slave etc)

These general characteristics are regularly found in most feminist literature.

So basically the article is written in a feminist style, and it attempts to mislead the reader. This can be verified by reading other feminist literature, and by talking to a doctor about currently available female contraception.

Questions about why there is so much abortion, (when there is such good female contraception presently available), still remain unanswered.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 28 February 2005 9:51:24 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
Timkins you have missed ther point - as Helen wrote and I concurred with,
The issue of "Choice" has nothing to do with comparative medicine or contraception. It in fact has little to do with abortion, although that is where "battle line" seem to be drawn.

The issue is "Choice" and it has everything to do with the individual and that individuals right to make decisions as they effect that individual’s life and body.
As I have tried to illustrate in my posts, we are more autonomous today than at any previous time in history.

We have moved beyond the authority and "Divine Right of Kings".

The "professional theologians" of every denomination have shown themselves to be too corrupt to pretend to have any "moral authority" in the secular society in which we live (more revelations of manipulation of children by bishops under Hollingsworths "responsibility" being aired tonight on the ABC). and thus secular society has moved on.

I personally believe the outcome of all this will be stronger, more capable individuals and thus a stronger, more capable society. Where people accept responsible for their decisions, instead of being given "placebo crutches" to excuse their bad behaviour (eg stupid notions of absolution from guilt after confession and saying 10 "Hail Marys" on the orders by a priest).

The number of abortions just does not matter - be there one or a million.
The relative “safety performance” of contraceptives does not matter – although it should result in fewer abortions. I would also note that the Roman Catholic propagandist, behind many anti-abortion campaigns, would have contraception denied to us too.

As a father, I had nothing like the “involvement” in the “pregnancy” as the mother of my daughters had and thus never expected the “final say” in the choices which were hers and hers alone.

I am not a “feminist” and oppose many “feminist” notions. Abortion is not a “feminist issue”. It is an “individual sovereignty” issue. It is the “sovereign right of choice” a woman has over her own body which is the issue and the "topic” of Helen's article
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 28 February 2005 3:37:00 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
Col,
There would be "choice", but any action by an individual also has "responsibilities"

Having sex is a choice, and it would be a statistical fact that the more often women (in general) have sexual intercourse, the more likely pregnancy can occur.

Now if a woman (as an individual) does not want to become pregnant, then she should use contraception. That is her "responsibility" and not just "choice".

There now is very good contraception available as compared to the past, and it is often subsidised by the taxpayer. For a woman to use that contraception is to show responsibility to herself, to the unborn child, and to society which pays the cost of unwanted children.

So nothing is free, and individuals have responsibilities for almost any action they carry out, including sex.

High rates of sexual activity without contraception leads to high rates of abortion, and personally I think our present rates of abortion are not acceptable in any society,

One interesting thing, testing of 23 commonly used condoms in the US found the worst condoms were being issued by Planned Parenting, which operates many abortion clinics throughout the US. http://cfacr.org/issues/pp/05-01-25-pp-condoms.htm

Other studies have shown that condoms were not very reliable as a means of pregnancy prevention, so until better forms of male contraception are developed, the female will have most responsibility for contraception (particularly because of the fact that the foetus develops in her womb)
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 28 February 2005 4:26:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...until better forms of male contraception are developed, the female will have most responsibility for contraception (particularly because of the fact that the foetus develops in her womb)"

So, suddenly you allow that women have more responsibility in the matter? How nice, all the responsibility and all of the risk?

Personally, I find that the best way to ensure that the majority of Australians remain pro-choice is to ask them their view before a relationship develops. Anti-choice? Then keep your pants on!!
Posted by Amanda, Monday, 28 February 2005 7:39:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One obvious fact that is always overlooked is that two consenting human beings, if fact, made this situation come about. The conception happened because two people had sex! And in making that choice, all people of sound mind know that it could result in a pregnancy. And so the "choice" has already been made! After that, there should be no choosing. They already chose! They chose to make love and that "love choice" should continue through carrying that little baby to term, through the birth and through the whole of its unchosen life.
Posted by Gella, Monday, 28 February 2005 9:16:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m keeping my pants on. The foetus and the man have equal rights – none. The women have the right of choice they do not abuse. Scary.
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 1:23:36 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 point of Thomson’s analogy is that a right to life does not entail a right to the use of other people’s bodies, or an obligation on their part to allow their bodies to be used by even the vulnerable and the needy."

The logical ramification/extention of this logic is that anyone in society can be 'culled' if they are an inconvenience on another persons 'body' ! (given that the reasoning behind this statement in the article is that 'even if the foetus is granted personhood')

MORAL RELATIVISM. This area of life is a classic illustration of the stumbling/grasping/don't have a clue-ism and 'take the line of most convenience'-ism that characterises so much of post modern/post Christian society. The reduction of human life to an issue of 'convenience' deserves condemnation of the serverest kind.

How about thinking of the fact that when a man and woman come together in intercourse and a child is conceived, that this is a human life in the normal course of things, that there can never be a question of 'convenience' over a newly created human life. The idea that its about a 'womans body and choice' is disgusting. A conceived child is just THAT ! An unborn child, containing the life of the FATHER just as much as that of the mother. How DARE anyone suggest that just because the female is the carrier of the child, that it is any less part of the father or that its life can be denegrated to a convenience issue. Adoption is always a means of not only releasing ones self of the on going struggle of raising a child, it is also a way of giving unspeakable joy to childless couples.
BILICAL PRINCIPLE. Psalm 139
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 9:18:28 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
Hypothetically - if a woman engaged in consensual intercourse, got pregnant and then was told that taking the pregnancy to full term would mean that she - because of complications - had a 50% chance of dying in childbirth, or that she - because of complications - must have a caesarian birth or die herself but in fact for religious or ethical reasons cannot undergo such surgery. Well ... faced with a such a choice, does she not have the right to say that in fact, abortion is an appropriate choice given that the alternative is her own death? Or death of her future dreams, aspirations, plans ... or is it only women that have to subsume their life to 'another'?
Posted by Audrey, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:13:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll bet some of these pro-abortionists are against capital punishment. They will wave banners and scream to save murderers and rapists from the noose or the firing squad, but they believe in killing an innocent helpless unborn child.

The say it's the woman's body to do with as she likes. If a woman wants to cut off her big toe, I would think :What an idiot, but it's her body, and her business". But abortion is something very different. There's another "party" involved, a tiny human being. Does anyone really deny it's a baby which is destined to grow into an adult human? Look at the recent pictures from the womb and any denial is self deception.

But these people now don't care if it IS a baby, they still want to kill it! Put the scissors into its tiny skull, no worries. How cruel and despicable can they get?

They are the one's who are "playing God". How can the medical staff carrying out this barbarism justify it in light of the Hippocratic Oath [Modern Version 1964] which states" above all I must not play at God"

I came across a little poem by Patricia Hesselgrave by chance recently.
It's called "A Cry Of Help".

I know you can't see me,
because I'm so new.
It's dark in here, deep within you.
Wait, I feel something wrong.
What can it be?
Oh no! I think my Mom
wants to get rid of me.
Doesn't she know
God's already given me my soul
and with her help my body will grow?
I know I'm small, the size of a spoon,
and it would be so easy
to just let me go.
Please don't take my life
just to make yours easier.
I have lots I'll be able to do,
and I promise to always love you.
Please let me grow
Please let me live
Please let me be born!
Posted by Big Al 30, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 12:42:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi BOAZ_David I was wondering what happened to your posts….

I am a father. I disagree with your supposition – the mother is carrier of an embryo and I will be THE ONE WHO DARES say that she has a more significant role and involvement in the pregnancy and she has a greater right of decision than the father ever will.

Re “The idea that its about a woman’s body and choice is disgusting”
The idea that Pro-Life advocates should expect to have control in the private decisions of people who do not hold similar views to them and to have that control with no responsibility for their imposed decision, DISGUSTING TOO –
Therefore result of the "disgusting stakes" is a draw.

More biblical enunciations – forget it– we live in a secular society with the priesthood in a state of disgrace through the evidence of their own corruption. “Bible Bashing” might work on religious zealots but it is not on the 90% of the population which does not bother to attend church..

Audrey – you are right – her body her choice – not some stranger who makes demands yet has no authority, responsibility or anything to lose by her decision.

Big Al 30 – I am Pro-Choice I am also be pro-death penalty and would extend its mandatory use to drug dealers on their second conviction. I hope that clears up your speculation. Oh and by the way – "Pro Choice" is not "pro-abortion" – I support the woman’s right to choose – that means “her choice” and many millions have chosen to have babies in the time since abortion has been de-criminalised.

Now your florid and emotional attempts to de-rationalise the debate will not work.
In the end we have
An individual woman who has a right to determine how her body will be used
versus
a bunch of nitwits who believe they have the right to force her, against her will, to endure a pregnancy..
I will always support the woman
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 7:11:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haven't you caught on yet? It's not just HER body. There's another human life in this equasion, and he/she has rights too, No one has the right to kill that child, and that includes you
Posted by Big Al 30, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 7:35:50 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
Bill M is on the money as far as I'm concerned. Mother and unborn are two seperate persons, tho' very combined during pregnancy. Whether others are convinced or not is up to their own conscience. What compounds / aggravates the problem is the the lack of readily available options such as finances to carry the child to term for adoption or to carry on with the child.
OE
Posted by OE, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 1:59:53 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
OE
I think there are dangers involved in government subsidising pregnancies, particularly unwanted pregnancies.

There are between 80,000 to 100,000 abortions per year, (depending on the source of statistics). This is about 20% of pregnancies.

Now for government (read taxpayer) to finance these pregnancies through to the birth, so that the children can be adopted out is a significant cost, but it is a yearly cost only.

To finance the mother to keep the child and raise the child until it is 18 or older, is an enormous cost, and an ever increasing cost, as there would be 80,000 to 100,000 new children born each year to be subsidised. So over 18 years this amounts to subsidising up to 1,800,000 children and possibly their mothers also (ie over 50% of single parent mothers do not work). This would produce an enormous welfare state.

So, apart from producing this enormous welfare state, what would be the other options?

1. Government to subsidise abortion.

2. Government to subsidise contraception, and have education programs for the use of contraception.

3. Get couples together, and preferably get them married.

Unfortunately I think that there are people in society who are pro-1, anti-2, and highly anti-3.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 10:26:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, you claim that the rights of the child are "subordinate" to the rights of the mother. On what grounds do you make this claim? What do "cognitive ability" or "autonomy" have to do with rights? Are you suggesting that a man in a coma hooked up on life support has no rights? You mention the child is "invisible". Ever heard of an ULTRASOUND?

What does "priority discretion over her body" have to do with rights also? I have pointed out that if the woman is OBLIGATED to the child, then she simply no longer HAS these "rights" in the way abortion choicers imply. As Gella correctly pointed out, she has ALEADY EXERCISED priority discretion of her body by choosing to have vaginal sex. Because of that CHOICE, she has consented to the outcome - pregnancy.

I may have been the prior owner of a house, but if I sell the right of ownership to someone else, then my "prior discretion of ownership" becomes completely irrelevant.

Let me give you a relevant analogy. A woman and a small child are on a boat out on the ocean. The woman displays risky behaviour that results in the small child being knocked overboard into the deep ocean. The child cannot swim, the woman can. The child's life has been put at risk by the woman. Does this woman have an OBLIGATION to jump in and rescue this child or doesn't she? Suppose she doesn't like the child and wants the child to die. Does she have a "right to control her body" and NOT rescue the child, after the damage has already been done?
Posted by jaxxen, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 11:37:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, I am not at all "ranting about how I feel". You are the one motivated by feelings here - you FEEL a greater affinity with a mature, sentient woman than you do an unborn child - hence your prejudice. But this is not a debate about feelings, this is a debate about RIGHTS.

I do not seek to "enforce my will" upon women per se, I seek only to see that JUSTICE is objectively done. The fact that a pregnant woman IS "intimitely involved" in the matter of her own pregnancy only makes her all the more likely to make a decision IN HER OWN SELF-INTEREST if she is given a "choice".

The fact that there may well be a CLASH between the needs of the woman and the rights of the child, again only makes her more likely to kill in her own self-interest. As it happens, women given a "choice" commonly abort pregnancies for all sorts of self-motivated reasons - (because they weren't in a relationship when pregnant, because of "financial reasons", because she wanted to focus on study or a career etc. etc.).

If on the other hand, there may be a justifiable reason to abort a pregnancy, then the law has a responsibility to allow for those situations - and I fully support that. But simply allowing open slather against the pre-born based on "choice" for the powerful party, simply guarantees much unjustified killing.
Posted by jaxxen, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 11:39:25 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
BigAl30 – Read my posts – “It is just her body” – not yours – so you don’t get to have a say.
I am not advocating anyone kills anyone else – so please do not twist what I say – I support “choice of the individual” – that you cannot grasp the difference is a matter of your lack of comprehension – suggest you acquire some before you make negative comments about what I write in future.


Jexxen – subordinate rights of the child – as the writer of another article here (Bill Muehlenberg), challenging this article, expressed – the embryo / fetus is a guest in the mothers body – the woman is the permanent resident. She also has “seniority of residence”. We cannot place the two sets of rights equal. Placing the embryo / fetus before the mother, reduces the mother’s status that of a chattel and I would never condone such a position. Simplistic analogies of with people in boats carries no credence.

I do not “FEEL a greater affinity with a mature, sentient woman than you do an unborn child”.

I am male and a father yet I see no way in which I am “equipped” to feel anything like a woman might feel when she knows she is pregnant – call it one of the men versus women differences.

I do feel a great affinity with how “individuals” feel because I am one.
I feel a great affinity for the right of individuals to determine and control, as much as possible, their own destiny.
I respect and defend their right to freedom of choice in a secular world - Just as I denounce socialism as a political myth which delivers nothing but ensures mediocrity because all it does is limits the potential of outstanding individuals to that allowed by the state.

That you conclude that women might act selfishly without knowing the full details of their circumstances, abilities, expectations or aspirations show you know nothing about her and thus are basing your assessment on ignorance. “Ignorance” is never a good legal nor debating foundation.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 4 March 2005 10:15:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge: Boy are you in denial! You keep repeating the old rubbish that "it's just her body" Haven't you seen the ultrasounds, the other images from the womb, the little faces? What do you think they are - rabbits?
Take your head out of the sand and your brains out of the freezer.

Abortion kills, and that's the choice you support. The baby has no choice. Abortionists and pro-choice women are playing God, deciding who dies by deliberate act. What hypocrites are the doctors and nurses who take the Hippocratic Oath "Above all I must not play at God" and then plunge the scissors into helpless babies' skulls.!

They have no right to decide that a tiny helpless human life conceived by the choice to have sex, is to be violently and cruelly ended. The child has human rights especially the right to be born. Pregnant women should be given more support so they won't even consider kiling their unborn child.
If they can't raise the child,at least give him/her a chance at life by adoption.
Posted by Big Al 30, Friday, 4 March 2005 8:57:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Timkins
For those who demand an abortion, they will go ahead. However, there is enough evidence about post abortion syndrome and greater proclivity to breast cancer, to warrant support for those who would rather not abort - mother and fathers. This is not to promote a welfare gravy train, but to help fellow Aussies who are in need, and I'm not grading the levels of need among the needy. Those faced with a child in womb are far from the lowest level of those in need.

OE
Posted by OE, Friday, 4 March 2005 10:17:44 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
BigAl30 – me in denial – not at all – maybe that satisfies your need to compartmentalise and categorise peoples responses but you too little about me to make the “easy” judgement which you so readily jump to – simply out of ignorance (you will just have to accept my word for that).
When you can face the reality that your opinion is not omnipotent, is not all pervading and because people disagree with you it is simply that they view the world and analyse it with more a refined and better developed cognitive processes than those you struggle with.
It takes a far greater degree of “faith” and “trust” to believe, accept, defend and promote the view that people are the best judges of their own circumstances -
Rather than some monolithic state, religion or social (class) structure in which someone else makes the hard and challenging decisions for us.
You could give pregnant women all the support you want – but it will all be pointless if you destroy the individual by destroying her belief in her right to self determination.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 4 March 2005 11:10:58 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
OE, I would agree that abortion should be on the bottom of the list so far as options go for an unwanted pregnancy, but I think it highly important to determine why there are so many unwanted pregnancies in our society (ie nearly 20% of pregnancies).

Abortion would have to be the worst researched area of medical science, and I feel that this is because the pro-choice lobby groups have successfully shut down all enquiry or research into abortion. So no research -> no problems identified -> no solutions found -> continuation of high rate of unwanted pregnancies -> continuation of high rate of abortion -> continuation of welfare system for single mothers that keep the baby -> continuation of welfare cycle of many children of single parent families etc.

The worst-case if for the pro-choice lobby groups to be successful in halting all inquiry, research and investigation into abortion this time around also. If that occurs, no problems will be solved, as per the past.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 4 March 2005 11:14:53 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
Col, the child in the womb is NOT a "guest" in the mothers body at all, it is effectively a CAPTIVE. A "guest" has a CHOICE NOT to be there. Remember, the unborn child had no say in it's being in the womb. A captive cannot be tresspassing on the rights of it's captor. Instead, a captor is obligated to the captive.

That the mother is the "permanent resident" only adds weight to my own argument. The child is not a permanent burden for the mother to carry - her self-inflicted "loss" of liberty is only temporary and partial. The child on the other hand stands to lose it's entire life and liberty permanently. That's precisely why the State has a duty not only to protect the innocent from aggression, but also to avoid the worst possible outcome from the scenario. Hence the just thing for the State to do, is to protect the child.

You can't complain about the woman's "loss of liberty" after the damage has already been done, Col. If her liberty meant so much to her, then she should either have avoided vaginal intercourse completely, or she should have gotten herself sterilised. Anything less than that and she becomes responsible and liable for the outcomes of her choices. Her "loss of liberty" was inflicted by HERSELF, not by the child. That's the key point in this debate.

I note that you conveniently attempt to brush aside my liability argument. But it won't do, Col. You have in no way refuted it. If the woman is liable, then she no longer HAS a "right to control her body".
Posted by jaxxen, Saturday, 5 March 2005 3:57:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jaxxen – from your post

“the child in the womb is NOT a "guest”” – argue that with Bill Muehlenberg - I purposely used his expression from his pro-life bleating.

The mother being “permanent resident” adds nothing to your argument – it analogously describes her priority of status compared to “guest” status within her body.

“woman's "loss of liberty" after the damage has already been done,….”
When you know the circumstances which prevailed to result in her being pregnant, presumably against her will (or she would not be seeking abortion), you might have some argument. Since you certainly do not know those circumstances – you are basing your demand to abstinence on your own ignorance. Ignorance is not a sound basis on which to decide anything.

“brush aside my liability argument.” The woman is liable to and for her own body –
the embryo / fetus is inseperable to that body, thus it is not a separate individual – you are trying to define a womans “liability” to herself.
In attempting to define peoples liability to themselves – we all conduct such debates with ourselves – It is not something the state, church or society need interfere with (and nor should it try).

Now maybe you answer me (instead of whining about what I have not supposedly answered from you),
what special insight, authority or power do you think you possess which entitles you to interfere in the free exercise of the sovereign rights of other individuals in determining their own destiny, many of which I know you do not know and for which you will bear no personal responsibility, should they be forced to obey your edict
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 7 March 2005 9:49:15 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
Timkins
You're on the money. Abortion is poorly researched, so get behind John Howard and agree that the Parliament have a free debate on the issue. Then research will occur.
Posted by OE, Monday, 7 March 2005 2:16:00 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
The author of the article Helen Pringle argues that even if the fetus is a person, there are still good arguments for abortion! Good God, what about "the rights of the child"? Where is the UN now? Where is the Hippocratic Oath [Modern Version 1964]?

Even the ones in denial about the fetus being a person want to treat it as though he/she were a cancerous tumour. How do they sleep at night, especially when they wake in the wee small hours?

The sooner there is a National Enquiry into these 90,000 - 100,000 abortions [which is bordering on "open season" ] the better.
Posted by Big Al 30, Monday, 7 March 2005 6:44:00 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
Col Rogue, you continue to be in denial. I don't give a rats what this Bill Muehlenberg says, an unborn child is a CAPTIVE, not a "guest", as a "guest" has a CHOICE NOT to be there.

"When you know the circumstances which prevailed to result in her being pregnant, presumably against her will" - Col...

One can assume the circumstances very easily, Col. The woman CONSENTED to sexual intercourse - therefore she INVITES the outcome of that risk. As I wrote before, if you take a risk in life you invite the consequences of that risk.

Claiming a right to abortion-on-demand is like the gambler who goes to the casino, gambles a lot of money, and when she loses it all, demands it all back from the casino operator. "But I didn't WANT to lose all that money..." Sorry sweetheart, you took the risk!

I am not demanding abstinence BTW, I am simply demanding people accept RESPONSIBILITY for their own actions and choices, instead of making themselves out to be the victim.

"you are trying to define a womans “liability” to herself" - Col...

No, I'm not. I'm defining her liability to the unborn child inside her womb - why are you still not getting it, Col? An unborn child is certainly a biologically seperate individual - whether it requires a womb to develop is a mute point as non-viability isn't a just reason to abort.

BTW Col, do you agree with late term abortions?
Posted by jaxxen, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 1:49:52 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
It is a principle of justice that a wrong-doer is someone who INITIATES AGGRESSION against another. A murderer, a rapist, an assaulter, a kidnapper, a thief are all such cases. They are all wrong-doers because they have initiated force against an innocent victim and violated the fundamental rights a person has to be free from aggression. All human beings have an unalienable right to be free from the aggression of others but equally, we have an obligation not to aggress against others. We have a right to defend ourselves, should another attempt to aggress against us, as we also have a right to punish those who initiate aggression against another. This is RETALIATORY AGGRESSION as opposed to initiated aggression. There is an important difference. So it is justifiable to defend oneself against the aggression of another and it is justifiable for a society to punish criminals and wrong-doers. These are basic principles of justice.

The womb is a very vulnerable place, a child can quite easily die there through purely natural causes. Parents have a natural RESPONSIBILITY to protect their children from harm and to provide for them. If you endanger the life of someone else, without their consent, then you have a moral OBLIGATION to protect such a life from harm. Too often people focus only on rights, but in truth RIGHTS COME WITH RESPONSIBILITIES AND FREEDOM COMES WITH OBLIGATIONS. The two go hand in hand. Rights and responsibilities are flip sides of the same coin.

There is no doubt who is initiating aggression in the case of abortion. It is the woman and the abortion performer. The child is a completely innocent victim of their initiated aggression. They are violating the non aggression principle which is the basis of justice.
Posted by jaxxen, Wednesday, 9 March 2005 1:51:47 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

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