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 semantics of abortion > Comments

The semantics of abortion : Comments

By Helen Ransom, published 9/2/2006

When does human life begin? A discussion on RU486, abortion and choice.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 80
  10. 81
  11. 82
  12. All
We do not need another Pro-Life, Pro-Choice argument, it is almost like a chicken/egg came first argument.

I can see both side of the argument, so I am not touching it with a 10 foot pole.

(does that make me Pro-Choice)

For those Pro-life people
If we can abort Adolf Hitler, should we have?
What if there is a 10% chance the mother would die in labour, how about 50%? 100%?
An orphan does not have a choice if they spend the first 20 years in an orphanage.

For those pro-choice people
When do you draw the line, 2 month foetus, 9 months? 90 yo men with cancer and no relatives? Are you pro-euphanasia as well?
What if you got aborted?
What if the mother was depressed at the time and would have changed her mind later on?
If the husband would taken care of the baby or if serogate parent is found, should the mother have a choice?

There is no use arguing, there is no right answer
Posted by dovif, Thursday, 9 February 2006 4:05:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To RobP,

How would i have liked being aborted? I guess it depends on the existential stance I take. If it's heaven/hell afterlife then i'd probably get a ticket straight to heaven or at least an upper level of hell, being an innocent and all, if it's reincarnation i'd probably just get born again in some other place, hopefully to a mother that wanted me, and if its materialism then i probably wouldn't know about it having not developed the parts of the brain that do all the thinking. Those options aren't all that bad.
But seriously, in an ideal world there would be no unwanted pregnancies. But that is not currently the case so until then we have to find the best and most workable solutions to the problems that we have.
The pro-life group should think about solutions to the wider problems around abortion first instead of demanding it be made illegal now and then expecting everyone to come up with answers to all the problems that this then generates.
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 9 February 2006 4:16:26 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
Why did The Australian newspaper on Saturday Feb 4th print a photo of an apartment block in Fitzroy St, St Kilda - captioned as Senator McGauran's home. Every one knows that Fitzroy St is a red light district replete with gays, prostitutes, drug adicts and a thriving night life.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 9 February 2006 4:51:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. Is RU486 a deadly killer?

I have no idea. I do know that more people die from taking aspirin every year in Australia than have ever died from RU486. Maybe someone actually qualified could work it out. How about a board of doctors, like the TGA? After all, they do this for every other medicine.

2. Is the TGA barred from considering RU486 by their statute?

The answer is clearly no. As you state, a therapeutic drug is one used 'in connection with' 'controlling conception' (no. 3). An argument can be made that an abortifacient is a drug used in connection with controlling the results of a conception. When the meaning of a statute is unclear, judges usually look at the intention of parliament. Given that no-one in parliament has brought up this particular argument, it is clear that partliament intended the TGA statute to include abortifacients.

3. Does human life begin at conception?

This is the question that lies at the heart of the abortion debate. Anti-abortionists appear to claim that the second a sperm enters an egg, a human being comes into existence. Strangely they cite no actual scientific proof for this belief. Scientific research tells us instead that it is not until around the third trimester that the baby gains any kind of consciousness. Until then, it is no more than a bundle of cells, more akin to an amoeba than a human baby.

Instead of science, anti-abortionists rely on belief in God. This is intellectually insulting for two reasons. Firstly, it goes against the ideals of our secular society by forcing the views of one religion onto the remainder of the Australian population. And secondly and most importantly, it brings something as inherently unscientific and non-rational as God into what purports to be a scientific debate.

Helen how do you manage to claim that 'every medical textbook worth its name states that human life begins at conception'? I challenge you to give me the names of 4 medical textbooks actually used in Australia's medical schools which states this 'fact'.

Go on Helen. Prove me wrong.
Posted by Count0, Thursday, 9 February 2006 5:10:21 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
Abortion and pregnancy issues, when placed in the public domain for discussion, inevitably recede to the female v male rights on the unborn.

Many advocate the rights of the woman while marginalising the male to the role of nothing more than the sower of seed. This is as illegitimate (pardon the pun) as reducing a woman to the role of a mere incubator.

Women bear the brunt of the physical and emotional trauma of physical pregnancy. To say that I can empathise with that would be untrue however the inception of life ripples out far beyond the immediate. To be a part of the beginning of life is not to be easily dismissed regardless of gender. For a male to say it is a matter for the woman, alone, is an indictment on the proposer, it is not a supportive argument for any ideal.

This aside, there is abundant medical evidence to support serious doubts as to the safety of the drug in question. It will be argued that it is demeaning to woman to assume that it will be used without informed intent but so be it. In many cases it will be an easy out, and the consequences will be dealt with if or when they arrive.

No doubt, as a male, my gender will be cause for immediate dismissal, to many, of any points that I raise however life is not the bastion of one gender, it is the culmination of both.
Posted by Craig Blanch, Thursday, 9 February 2006 7:08:06 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
Helen I think you're wonderful - will you marry me? (gdptheome2:))

An American has just won an election for the presidency. Yet to be inaugurated, not exercising powers of president. In the ordinary course of events this citizen will be president.

An ovum recently fertilised in the ordinary course of events will become like you and me. This potential personhood is morally significant.

The argument that a hair with a full compliment of chromosomes is the same as a zygote with its full compliment is discredited forever I'd say.

I think this is persuasive, though I don't know of any counter arguments. Does anyone?

Anyway Life is the primary value from which all others flow, we must protect it
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 9 February 2006 7:50:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 80
  10. 81
  11. 82
  12. All

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