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 > RU486 - something to be said for considered debate > Comments

RU486 - something to be said for considered debate : Comments

By Andrew Laming, published 16/2/2006

Where substantial ethical concerns exist, Parliament should retain the option to resume the power delegated to the Therapeutic Goods Adminsistration when required.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 31
  7. 32
  8. 33
  9. All
I utterly fail to see the connection.

>>approval [of RU486] means additional choices for some, but ironically closes down a chance to debate the ethics of new medications.<<

Absolutely not so.

If Parliament wants to make abortion illegal, it is perfectly entitled to go down that path. Once it has done so, it can withdraw approval for all abortifacients.

At face value, this is another attempt to freight the TGA with ethical considerations that the author readily admits should be the province of our parliament. The role of the TGA is to assess health risk, not play judge and jury.

We elect our politicians, and trust they will take responsibility for the decisions they make on our behalf. (Stop sniggering Jones Minor) At a different level, we trust that bodies such as the TGA will discharge their particular responsibilities as best they can. But we shouldn't ask the TGA to do our government's work for them.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:59:53 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
Regarding the RU486 pill i beleive that every woman has a right to choose, abortion is a very personal thing! Having an abortion doesnt hurt anyone but the woman and the unborn child, so i dont understand why so many people get so upset if some "jane" gets an abortion how does an abortion from a person affect our daily lives?
Those people who dont want an abortion dont have to have one and they should be respected and those who have one should be respected too! Its our bodies and our lives and we should be the ones who decide what happens! Being a mum is hard its not just a short term thing its a lifetime and if you are not ready to have one then dont have one there is nothing worse than having a child that is born and they are unloved because they were a "mistake" or that child has a very bad childhood because the mother is too young or unfit to take care of it. If the RU486 Pill is available then itll be a positive turning point as then the woman dont have to go and surgically get one,and have time off from work etc.. she can just take the pill and still go to work etc. Also this is 2006 and life is changing,we should be moving with the times! NZ ,US ,Canada all have this drug available! So should we, anyway if the pill gets dissapproved then all some women would do is go overseas to get the drug have backyard abortions which is very dangerous or go to the black market.
ABORTION IS A PERSONAL CHOICE!it shouldnt be up to the prime minister to decide for all women of Australia he isnt the one who has to carry the child or live with it for that matter!
IT SHOULD BE UP TO THE INDVIDUAL!
Posted by Moni, Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:01:13 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
The problem I see with wrapping this comment with the RU486 debate is that RU486, from my understanding does not change the basic issue of abortion. If it was a new drug that people can use to grow a second head, then by all means start talking about the moral standpoint about that as it hasn't been explored and there is no law/legislation covering it and developing some may be a damn good idea.

All RU486 does is take a process which is already legal (no matter what your moral standpoint) and makes the process simpler and in early pregnancy safer. On this argument we should be debating many other dangerous drugs that we take everyday. If we debate one then we must debate all. Is it a good idea for older men to have access to Viagra, to be having sex? Possibly siring babies if they have the right partner? Dropping dead with the excitement of it all? What sort of fathers will they be? Lets debate the morals of all that shall we?

How then are we going to debate this? Do we say yes to this treatment and no to that one? Part of the problem with a lot of drugs is that they can be used for more than one thing. In this case people with certain cancers will in some significantly prolong their life using RU486. How do we weigh this up? My x amount of abortions (and don't get me started on how rubbery those figures are) wins more voter sympathy than your Y amount of cancer sufferers?

Will we then see false spikes in statistics that will see people diagnosed wrongly because the need that particular medication for another problem? How then do we decide what funding for R&D and services goes where when we can't properly see what our country’s health status is?

Sure, debate whether or not we repeal abortion laws, just have the "physical anatomy" (being polite today) to come right out and say that's what we would like to do. Or is that going to loose too many votes?
Posted by Nita, Thursday, 16 February 2006 1:19:46 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
Abortion is not about to change, only the method. Quite frankly I dont see why Federal Parliament is wasting so much time and resources on such an issue which was settled 30 years ago. It is a states issue which as I said was settled some 30 years. I think the time wasted would have been better spent properly debating the big issues that were hastily rammed through parliament at the end of last year. Issues such as the workplace bill were rammed through with little respect for the worker. I suppose the theme is the same though taking away choices and diluting standards and blaming and shaming. A real 1950's thing!
Posted by aramis1, Thursday, 16 February 2006 1:23:09 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
aramis, the fact that there is so much debate on abortion shows that there it certainly was not laid to rest 20 or 30 years ago.

A significant part of our society is dissatisfied with the alarmingly high amount of abortions each year in Australia. Just as you are concerned about the individual worker, many people are concerned for the defenceless unborn - those who should be the future of our society. This concern, and the debate about the availability of RU-486 leads many to wonder about the future of our society.

What Danna Vale said was so correct, that she came under fire from everyone. She actually praised Muslim families, as they have some consideration for the unborn. They do not promote promiscuity like our society and hence they don’t find themselves with 100,000 unwanted pregnancies per 20 million people. As Vale predicted, the post-Christian, atheistic westerners are on the way out, and whether you think it is a good thing or a bad thing, we are aborting ourselves out of existence. Darwin would call it the survival of the fittest; it's just funny that the suicidal ones seem to be the Westerners, not the Muslims.

I too refer you to Mark Steyn’s opinion piece, which also featured in today’s Australian.
Posted by Alex Perrottet, Thursday, 16 February 2006 2:17:18 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
Where's it going to end? There is such a lowering of morality in society. Ok so abortifacient drugs may be available at your local pharmacy. It really takes responsibility away from people. People can sleep around and do whatever they want because they can easily go over to their doctor or pharmacy and just kill the foetus inside. 12 year old girls can go to their doctor or pharmacy and get the RU486 drug without their parents knowing. The same 12 year old girl can go to the doc and get Oral contraceptives without permission of their parents. No need for responsibility in the future... Men can have intercourse and affairs with as many women they want knowing they can give her a little pill if she has an "accident". Up again goes the divorce rate! So how many abortions is each women going to have each year, 20? 30? More? Already with oral contraceptives women are having abortions because it isn't always effective. It is not good for a woman's morality and health and self esteem. Again, there are other options like homoeopathic abortions. It is safe, 100% effective when done by a trained physician and costs little. But I forgot, the drug companies get so much money from taxpayers by doing abortions that cheap natural medicine abortions aren't allowed!
And is the RU486 as safe as they say? Or were the drug companies duping the trials for that also. So many women died on the oral contraceptive pill trials that they put those from the control group in the active group. And our teenage girls are taking these harmful pills.
I think having easy access to RU486 will decrease morality, health, and safety in society just like having easy access to surgical termination would.
I am a female, I am not a prolifer or a Catholic. I just care about health and morality in society.
Posted by Em2, Thursday, 16 February 2006 2:17:40 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
So, what, Em2? If its a homeopathic abortion you're in favour, if its a medical one with money going to pharma companies its evil?

I am very glad to see that the bill, in its original form, recently passed parliament. Good to see that logic and science won the day.
Posted by Laurie, Thursday, 16 February 2006 2:43:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am pleased that the bill passed. I thought the fight had been fought 30 years ago and 80% of Australians accept abortion being legal.

In another forum someone said that if there are 100,000 abortions and 260,000 live births then 28% of women have an abortion. Their number crunching sucks, its 28% pregnancies end in abortion each year and its been estimated that 66% of Australian women have an abortion at least once in their life.

If the number of abortions worries you, then ask our legislatures promote family / child friendly policies that means adequate childcare, affordable housing, decent education, reasonable working conditions, ability to plan your career and dream of a decent future.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 16 February 2006 3:56:23 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
"aramis, the fact that there is so much debate on abortion shows that there it certainly was not laid to rest 20 or 30 years ago. "

a LOUD MINORITY that's all and that's the problem with this piece. It is not the role of government to tell us how to run our lives. Moral and ethical choices should be up to the individual not the government nor small pressure groups. You have to ask the question with the ease that the bill passed in the lower house and if the TGA pass the drug for use what was the real reason that this drug unavailble to Australians for the last ten years for?
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 16 February 2006 5:09:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has anyone ever watched a movie or read a book that's about gender bias? Please tell me...
Posted by Jody, Thursday, 16 February 2006 5:45:44 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
From the article:
"That is why the community deserves some say via Parliament"

Yes Pericles, this "Jones Minor" is certainly sniggering! If we had any real say, Harradine and his co-conspirators would not have got away with their blatantly dishonest tactics 10 years ago when RU486 was put into the hands of parliament instead of the obviously appropriate regulatory body, the TGA. And none of the present time and money wasting exercise would have been necessary.

Talking about us having some say, why haven't we got voluntary euthanasia legislation, when about 80% of us have wanted it for years? Because basically the same vocal minority who don't approve of abortion don't approve of that either. And some of them have the nerve to come on here and berate us for not being comfortable with what amounts to religious dictatorship.
Posted by Rex, Thursday, 16 February 2006 6:32:36 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
Andrew

Which way did you vote?
Posted by keith, Thursday, 16 February 2006 7:47:56 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
Bucking for a Cabinet spot, Andrew? So soon, when you've as much seniority as Malcolm Turnbull? An argument that keeps women happy(ish), keeps the pro-foetals happy(ish), and best of all, steers a middle course between what the Prime Minister wants - we all know the mere fact of election confers omniscience - and what your own experience (which you've trumpeted) tells you is right. You'll go far. I don't want to speculate about the direction. I shall watch your Dorothy Dix-ers with interest.
Posted by anomie, Thursday, 16 February 2006 8:47:44 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
No abortion.

No drinking.

No smoking.

More police power.

Intelligent Design.

[insert your favoured psychosis here]....

I just love people who believe that their efforts are justified in such matters.

If it wasn't so serious, I'd laugh myself to sleep at their idiocy: the more they seek to legislate away my freedom, my atheism, my social uniqueness, and my ability to exercise choice, the less I want to bring children into the world they would have my children live their lives in.
Posted by When_The_Going_Gets_Weird, Thursday, 16 February 2006 9:55:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the reasoned article Andrew. I hope you didn't expect much in return though. Some of the lamest responses continue to be parroted as if they have any value. Keep up the good work Andrew.

The ultimate act of cowardice has been done by parliment after no call was made to record who voted for and against this bill. I find it amazing, considering the claims of apparent support by the Australian people given here, that ministers would duck this accountability to the people of australia. If support was so overwhelming, surely they wouldn't be so scared to be held accountable.
Posted by Alan Grey, Friday, 17 February 2006 7:26:25 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
"When the going gets weird" needs to think a little deeper. We are not talking about Govt interference in traffic or town planning rules here. Would you feel so "free" to raise children if paedophilia laws were removed?

The difficuly with this issue is that RU486 is not "Therapeutic" in any way, shape or form. Quite the contrary!

Let's not let logic get in the way of this 'sacred cow' of secular humanists. Canada has not allowed this drug after a woman diied during testing. The US has many lawsuits presently surrounging RU486 and approval for it is being reconsidered by authorities. And we now go and approve it?

"All hail the great God of secular humanism - My Choice! Let us bow down and sacrifice our children."
Posted by brougham, Friday, 17 February 2006 7:33:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Moni,
If abortion was merely a personal matter; why is the Government encouraging an increase in the birth rate? It is a social problem that wemon are aborting their babies. visit any Phychologists clinic and you will realise it is also a mental problem of women dealing with guilt and depression and this affects her family. My wife had a natural abortion and I can say it affected more than just her; It affected all the family. It is more than a personal choice that only affects the mother.

With your comment:
"ABORTION IS A PERSONAL CHOICE!it shouldnt be up to the prime minister to decide for all women of Australia he isnt the one who has to carry the child or live with it for that matter!
IT SHOULD BE UP TO THE INDVIDUAL!"

This indicates your attitude toward children. When have women not had to carry and give birth to children? How did you get here? When have children not lived with their mother?

Abortion and having children is a whole of society issue. The decisions impact on society and reflects personal attitudes toward children. The future emotional state of our society depends upon how mothers view and treat their children. Ask any school Teacher if the mothers attitudes have reflected upon the child's behaviour and self esteem. Is it any wonder we have a social problem in todays children?
Posted by Philo, Friday, 17 February 2006 9:20:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When a share price goes into free-fall on the stock exchange, there is often a phenomenon called the "dead cat bounce", where the stock appears to revive for a short while before collapsing completely. Since the votes have been counted, and the verdict is in, all that is left of this particular thread is a couple of unhappy voices, shouting at the departed train as they hobble along the platform.

Alan Grey, you are an American christian evangelist, presumably posting here as part of your world-wide mission to promote your faith. Stop pretending to speak for Australians.

>>I find it amazing, considering the claims of apparent support by the Australian people given here, that ministers would duck this accountability to the people of australia.<<

As you would know, if you lived here, a sizeable majority of Australians supports our government in this. Parliament was allowed a
"conscience vote" - you are probably unfamiliar with the term - and in such circumstances individual votes are never recorded.

>>If abortion was merely a personal matter; why is the Government encouraging an increase in the birth rate? It is a social problem...<<

A very good point indeed Philo. The government has absolutely no business interfering with either procreation or abortion, both are entirely personal issues.

They are allowed to point out potential consequences of a low birth rate - which they do - and they may find financial means to encourage larger families, which they also do, but which I personally object to. If using our money this way buys them votes, they will do it. But there is a world of difference between financial arm-twisting and creating criminals.

You are right, it is a social problem. But society is shaped by people. Society is the cumulative result of individual action within a group. Society doesn't exist without people. You cannot legislate what “society” does, only the individuals within it.

It could well be that “society” will not recover from the path it has chosen for itself. But the ability to choose how to conduct ones life is still highly regarded by many.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 17 February 2006 11:02:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that alot of people are not thinking about the actual people here , some women and young girls will want to use RU486 because they dont have to be seen walking away from an abortion clinic.

Alot of men who are posting comments on here should also think about what they are typing before they actually post it , NO MAN can possibly understand what these women and young girls go through when they make their decision.

I have read the pros and cons regarding RU486 and I agree that there isnt a need for it when you can get an abortion if you feel you need one,but there will be still the ones that use this drug and no man has any right to debate this subject!
Posted by Rachael, Friday, 17 February 2006 11:53:28 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
Philo writes, “Abortion and having children is a whole of society issue” and “The future emotional state of our society depends upon how mothers view and treat their children.” Last time I checked, it is a man and a woman that decide to have a child. I didn’t see anyone else in the bedroom besides those two. The man and the woman are then supposed to raise the child. Once again, I don’t see anyone else in the room, reading the child a bedtime story each night. Let the state build roads and bridges and hospitals. Let the state police the law of the land. But please, let the mother and father do the decision-making and then the raising (as much as possible). Or can’t we ‘trust’ them? Are such decisions too important to be left to the Good Folk Of The Land?

“It is a social problem that women are aborting their babies.” No, it’s a personal choice, but yes, perhaps ‘society’ isn’t happy about it. Once again, I don’t see anyone else fronting up to the abortion clinic besides the woman, and perhaps her (male) partner/husband/etc. I’m just not sure that anyone else besides the two people involved has earnt the right to then decide the matter for the couple. If you take away the couple’s right to make their own decisions, can you go on to hold them fully responsible thereafter for raising the child? Which way do you want things?
Posted by When_The_Going_Gets_Weird, Friday, 17 February 2006 12:53:36 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
When_The_Going_Gets_Weird,
True it is the parents role to care for children. But who provides child care, Education and community vacilities for children? These children grow up to pay tax to maintain welfare systems for parents, children and society.

We are now entering a period when the working population is below the essential level to maintain current welfare needs to children and the aged services that we expect. Over the last 30 years in Australia 5,000,000 potential children have been aborted that would now be entering the workforce to maintain our standard of living. So expect lower standards of living and higher taxes in the future.

The current population growth is 1.7% [including Muslim growth at 4.2%] and of that total the Muslim population growth is occurring above doubling itself each generation because they do not believe in abortion or their women indulging in promiscuis sex. This will chance the social mix of our future population. As in 50 years all those above current childbearing age will be dead. So anti-abortionists will make up a higher percentage of the population. How is it those anti-abortionists survive without abortion while you expect it as essential to your survival as an adult?

Quote, "Let the state build roads and bridges and hospitals. Let the state police the law of the land. But please, let the mother and father do the decision-making and then the raising (as much as possible). Or can't we trust them? Are such decisions too important to be left to the Good Folk Of The Land?"

The "Good Folk" are the Government of the land who have their representatives to speak and vote on issues on the good Folks behalf.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 17 February 2006 3:32:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting how the decline in population growth has become the new catchcry for the anti-choice crowd..we need more babies, more babies - Yeah, the world is really short on people, isn't it? All that spare land, spare resources..lets just a keep on breedin!

Aborting ourselves out of existence, what a load of crap, what we are seeing is society adapting to the fact that we don't need to (and ultimately can't) just keep on increasing in numbers. Its not secular atheist types that are out of touch with reality, its those that insist on following every literal prescription in some dusty old book and breeding like crazy to increase the numbers of their tribe..Well maybe you will get what you want and you can all sit around in your squalid repressed overpopulated theocracy waiting for armageddon or whatever, but not if I can help it. Vote religous politicians out!
Posted by hellothere, Friday, 17 February 2006 9:09:50 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
"The current population growth is 1.7% [including Muslim growth at 4.2%] and of that total the Muslim population growth is occurring above doubling itself each generation because they do not believe in abortion or their women indulging in promiscuis sex. This will chance the social mix of our future population"

Philo, I get the impression that your main concern seems to be that Muslims are outbreeding Christians, so you think Christians should have more babies to outbreed Muslims, as you want your religion
to dominate. I think thats all a bit simplistic and certainly not sustainable. In your fervour you seem quite happy to deny women their human rights, again very sad. Women are not simply breeding machines. Having kids is optional.

Fact is the world is still increasing by 80 million a year, which is not sustainable either. Australia can take in extra migrants at any time, to solve all the problems that you mention.

In Islamic countries they are more then aware of the problems of simply too many people and are trying to do something about it.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2005/05/article03.shtml

Every woman on this planet should have the right to family planning and abortion in the first tremester. What we are doing to this planet on a global scale is simply not sustainable. How many people do you think we need? 10 billion? 15 billion? 20 billion. Since
we can't live sustainably with 6 billion, religious competitions of trying to outbreed each other will mean doom for all, especially the one planet that we have and should live on sustainably.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 17 February 2006 9:34:00 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
Pericles stop attacking the man. The same thing can be done to you. Alan Grey could reply "Pericles you are clearly an anti-god botherer libertine bent on spreading your base philosophy around Australia". We get no where when we do that.

If people are choosing poorly and my whole country is at risk I'd expect my elected leaders to do something about it.

Its not a good long term strategy for politicians to play to people's personal weaknesses and self-interest. In polling it may seem to be, but we lose respect for our leaders when they fail to make the hard decisions.

Abortion is mostly a wicked act. We need to do everything we can to change attitudes in society to sex and what freedom really is so that women find themselves in this position much less often.

All of us, when we are sexually self indulgent contribute to this permissive sexual morality. When we purchase and view explicit material, in our language, in our slowness to criticise creators of this stuff. We are all responsible for the deaths of these innocent lives.

Once upon a time the decadent sexual behaviour allowed today would be called shameful. It ought to be called that again. We are failing our young people, adults now see no need to restrict their sexual self expression as if it had no effects outside themselves.

There are no private sins. Everything we do has a public effect. We can darken our consciences, stain our psyches in private so that we become the kind of person who cannot do any public good.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 19 February 2006 1:44:47 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
Martin Ibn Warriq,
Totally agree with your views; well expressed. Who we are in private is truly our real selves, and it will manifest itself in our personal effectivness in community.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 19 February 2006 2:50:52 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
The selfish decision of the 45 Senators, particularly the 24 female Senators, who voted for the RU486 "death pill"; Bill is an indication of their pre-selection lobbying.

"RU486 has no other purpose than to kill the unborn baby in the womb. It is not a healing pill.

"The RU486 'death pill' is also described in the media as the 'abortion pill' yet now female Senators claimed the Bill had nothing to do with abortion.

"Finally, the often reported statement 'anyhow abortion is legal in Australia' is not true for NSW.

"What is legal or not legal - is decided by Parliament, not by the unelected Judges.

"The NSW Crimes Act still makes it illegal to perform an abortion but the Judges will not convict the abortionists.

Crimes Act 1900 No. 40 Quote: "Administering drugs etc to woman with intent. Whosoever:
unlawfully administers to, or causes to be taken by, any woman, whether with child or not, any drug or noxious thing, or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means, with intent in any such case to procure her miscarriage, shall be liable to imprisonment for ten years.

Quote 84 Procuring drugs etc
" Whosoever unlawfully supplies or procures any drug or noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether with child or not, shall be liable of imprisonment for five years". Unquote. !

"Drugs that kill the unborn child, no matter! at what development of the unborn, cannot be described as 'THERAPEUTIC' as therapeutic means 'CURATIVE, of the art of healing'.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 19 February 2006 3:06:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Once upon a time the decadent sexual behaviour allowed today would be called shameful. It ought to be called that again"

Well Martin, you are free to think of England or chew an apple in the process :)

Fact is that sex is normal and natural and actually quite healthy.
Some religions tried to distort that view, but nature prevails.

There is no objective morality, its all subjective.

The same hormones which affect behaviour to make sheep do it, goats do it, chimps do it, bonbobos do it etc, make the Martins of this world and even priests do it !

Don't forget that even bonobos do it in the so called "missionary position", so perhaps thats where the missionaries learnt all about
it :)
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 February 2006 3:28:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

I know this is off topic, but you sparked my curiosity. Why is it called the "missionary position"? Wo first posed the label and why?

Cheers
Kay

PS: I'm not pulling your leg - have never really thought about it!
Posted by kalweb, Sunday, 19 February 2006 7:21:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Kay,

ROFL, the questions we get on OLO :)

I gather that when missionaries went out to try and convert various tribes, these people, uninhibited by any church or Queen Victoria
etc, were into all kinds of fun sex, without too many inhibitions.

The Christian Church has a major problem with sex anyhow, as we can even see on this forum. So the missionaries tried to convince the locals that if they were going to do these evil things, at least do them in the least evil way, ie. the missionary position.

Thats the story AFAIK.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 February 2006 11:21:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Pericles, how little you seem to understand. I am well aware of a conscience vote. I am also aware how this is one the VERY few times that labor has allowed it's members this option.

ANY vote in parliment can either have the individual votes recorded if someone calls for it. That this was a conscience vote would seem to indicate that the issue was a contentious moral issue. As such, I would think our elected representatives SHOULD be accountable for how they voted. It was cowardice not to stand up and be counted and held accountable. I applaud the one parlimentarian who asked that his vote be recorded.

If, as you say, a sizable majority do agree with the government on this, then they would have no reason to be afraid of being held accountable on this decision. So, even if I accept your statement, they should have been happy to record the vote.
Posted by Alan Grey, Monday, 20 February 2006 7:56:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congratulations Andrew, good to know there are politicians with higher priorities than political expediency.

As these posts indicate, there's little thanks or political gain in defending truth or justice with many anti-lifers, especially when it comes to defending the unborn...no votes there either you lot - too young, so that answers the rot being yabbied on about voting pro-life for political gain.

Yabby you claim to have an extraordinary knowledge of the sexual habits of bonobos, history of the 'missionary position' (obviously concocted?) and make outrageous statements about Christians, Catholics and their sexual practices.

From "even bonobos do it in the so called "missionary position", so perhaps thats where the missionaries learnt all about it :)" and next post "The Christian Church has a major problem with sex anyhow”...” So the missionaries tried to convince the locals that if they were going to do these evil things, at least do them in the least evil way, ie. the missionary position."

Obviously your story was concocted between posts, although why the missionary position might be regarded as "the least evil way", is something best left in the corners of you own mind.

What have the sexual practices of bonobos or the local natives interest in, "all kinds of fun sex, without too many inhibitions"...to do with RU486 anyway. Your obsession with "fun sex" and bonobos is irrelevant to the topic. Your ego is getting carried away with itself if you're suggesting that Catholics and other Christians don't enjoy sex – who needs your paranoia clouding the issue with imaginings to hide your lack of knowledge?

If your evolving relatives are, in your mind and as you have previously suggested, the same as humans -then who are you to support breeding programs to prevent their extinction. If you support abortion for unborn humans, it follows that bonobos (if equal) should be left to deal with survival of the fittest…or extinction - nature is after all a cruel accountant as countless extinct species will attest. You can't have it both ways-equal or not?

Interested to hear Alan Grey’s US perspective on RU486 posted.
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 20 February 2006 2:21:05 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
Meg, there is indeed lots of on topic stuff, when discussing
sex and RU 486. If the church was so serious about dropping the abortion rate as it claims to be, then every catholic school would
have excellent education on contraception as part of the curriculum.

But the church plods on with its mantra that contraception is in conflict with gods law. Even many catholics think this is a lot
of nonsense and is creating misery for people.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=29319

I find it amusing that they call the Vatican "fundamentalists".

Bonobos and chimps are not the same as humans, in fact the last few thousand are landing up in the dinner pot, to feed the ever growing masses in Africa. Why you see no problem with that but think people should continue to breed like rabbits, because that is god's law,
beats me
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 20 February 2006 6:24:01 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
Yabby, your previous posts argue that Chimps and bonobos have the same DNA as we do and are the same...if you consider it is ok to tear unborn humans piece by piece from their mother's womb, why is it you expect special consideration for bonobos or chimps.

I don't agree that the unborn should be killed, rather that the mother should be adequately supported through the pregnancy and I do not like cruelty to animals either.

If these people have no other food source, they have no choice but to eat the bonobos and chimps, the answer is to provide another food source. You eat, if they have no alternative, so will they - whatever is available. Reality, isn't it?

You claim that it is Church law that Catholics should "breed like rabbits"...that must be the Church of Yabby in your mind again...rabbits aren't too choosey who they breed with and forget about their progeny once they can offload them. Doesn't sound like the teachings of the Church I know.

As for contraception, you obviously haven't heard about Natural Family Planning - methods used by many other than Catholics, very successfully. Broaden your mind, they obviously work as well for planning the conception of children as they do to space children...you learn something new every day Yabby.
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 12:37:32 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
Meg, I said that bonobos and chimps shared 99% of dna with humans, so they are a little different, not much.

RU 486 does not tear any babies apart, a misscarriage happens and the organism is expelled, much as happens when women misscarry, which is very common. Just think about it Meg, how many potentially
cute babies you have flushed down the toilet once a month, without giving it a second thought. Now because somebody else flushes a potentially cute baby down the toilet, because the pope says so,
you are highly concerned. By the way, even the suction method
of abortion, does not tear babies apart. A clump of dividing cells, with no feeling or intellect are simply sucked out. Those cells feel and think no more then the potential babies that you have flushed down the toilet in your lifetime. Think about it.

Bonobos, chimps and other species are being eaten in Africa because of huge population growth pressures. Part of those pressures are caused by organisations associated with the Vatican, usually run by
Catholics. The encouragement is for ever more babies, no matter what the cost in terms of sustainablity, or the future of the planet.
Things will be fine, god has a plan. Oh yeah lol.

I know all about the rythm method and it was clearly explained to me by a Catholic who teaches it and landed up with 6 kids :) Fact is that 80% of Catholics don't think much of it.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:39:18 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
‘if you consider it is ok to tear unborn humans piece by piece from their mother's womb, why is it you expect special consideration for bonobos or chimps.’ Yabby, you approve of abortion…therefore you approve of the methods.

‘Just think about it Meg, how many potentially cute babies you have flushed down the toilet once a month, without giving it a second thought.’

Your ignorance of the reproductive process is astounding, Yabby, even sad. Your comments would be more appropriate if left to entertain your own delusions and religious bigotry privately.

The process of release of ovum is entirely natural and not a live, developing, human baby…as is the child that is destroyed by abortion.

…but you have made your first accurate statement…my babies are all VERY CUTE! Thank you, it is the first assumption you are right about!

‘By the way, even the suction method of abortion, does not tear babies apart…Those cells feel and think no more then the potential babies that you have flushed down the toilet in your lifetime.’

Once again Yabby, you are wrong…on both counts. Check your facts and in consideration for those who may have inflicted this method of abortion on their child, I will not enlarge further.

Crikey the Catholics are plotting to support the eating of Chimps and Bonobos too…now you really are sounding obsessive…careful, they might hear you.

‘I know all about the rythm method and it was clearly explained to me by a Catholic who teaches it and landed up with 6 kids :) Fact is that 80% of Catholics don't think much of it.’

You’re a bit outdated with Natural Family Planning, Yabby. Contrary to more of your usual bigoted fantasies, natural family planning is successfully used widely throughout the world and not just by Catholics or Christians…and babies are planned, not just avoided…hence the children your acquaintance conceived.

Typically, anti-lifers consider that every child is a ‘mistake’ and cannot accept that others welcome children as the joy they are and not as a burden.
So much for ‘accepting’ her choices…you’ve exposed your real attitude again, Yabby.
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 5:28:57 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
Meg1,
You have spoken the truth. We are dealing here with perverted minds as to the nature of reality and the practise of the Christian faith.
Keep up the defense of life.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 9:57:31 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
My understanding of the reproductive process is fine Meg. What you flushed down the toilet were potential babies, just lacking the odd sperm. If your ova met up with some sperms down those sewers, are you responsible for murder ? :) Thats exactly how ridiculous your
argument is...

I have checked my facts. A bunch of dividing cells is not a person, not a baby, has no brain, does not feel or think. The emotionally challenged perhaps don't understand the science, but we can't help it if some people lack an education.

You have distorted my words Meg, good Christians should not be deceptive and liars :) I never claimed that the Catholic Church plotted to support the eating of bonobos and chimps, that is simply the result of their fanaticism to create even more little Catholics.

Natural family planning is rejected by 80% of Catholics Meg.
Even 50% of Catholic priests disagree with Romes views on this one.
There is a detailed article in the Economist Jan 25th 2001.
So even your religious buddies do not share your views by a factor of
4-1.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 10:16:07 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
Your Respose philo... was

"This indicates your attitude toward children. When have women not had to carry and give birth to children? How did you get here? When have children not lived with their mother?"

Philo, philo ,philo!
do u think that im stupid or somethin?
I have a positive attitude to children thankyou very much!OOOh i didnt know women carried babies.... and gave birth to children! thanx for enlightenin me!(sarcastic)and thats how i got here wow!(sarcastic)Do kids live with their mother?(sarcastic)

You r so rude !

My point to my first posting was that women should have the right to choose!

Why should the government decide wheather a woman can abort or not? its not as if every woman is aborting and we are going to have a population crisis!

there are a lot of women that are having kids and good on them! Im not condemning kids im condemning the government for trying to control womens choices and rights!
Posted by Moni, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 1:19:09 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
Moni,
Now you are blaming the Government that if you became pregnant and decided to abort you couldn't because no RU486 was available. So your unwanted child is the Federal Governments fault, because you wanted it to die in your womb. Especially John Howard and Tony Abbott because they would have stopped the readily available distribution of RU486.

Obviously you show lack of personal responsibility and discipline in your sexual activity. There are very good methods of avoiding pregnancy in the first place consider finding out about them. A child does not have to die because of your lack of self control and self disipline. Remember you are talking about a womans choice. With teenage pregnancy the youth is not capable of making a mature decision and other adults or boyfriends place pressure upon the girl to abort - and it is clearly not always her choice.

You claim it is a womans choice to abort - are our women so sexually irresponsible that they choose to abort one in every four babies in Australia. That is every fourth woman who falls pregnant now aborts her child. Abortion greatly increases by 16 times the womans chances of developing breast cancer than any other trigger of breast cancer.

I've had 2 middle age members of my extended family die of breast cancer before they had grandchildren and I can tell you this affected more than just the victim. With natural abortion the body closes down narurally any prepatory developments occurring in the mammary
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 8:55:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, you state "Abortion greatly increases by 16 times the womans chances of developing breast cancer than any other trigger of breast cancer". Would you like to back that with some reliable empirical evidence? I suggest that you cannot. I suspect that your statement rests on the fact that breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and given the high incidence of abortion it is likely that there is a correlation between breast cancer and abortion. Note well -a correlation is not a causal relationship. There will be 100 other correlations between breast cancer and other variables; not one of which is a KNOWN cause of breast cancer.

Please look up a Danish study of 1.5 million women born between 1935 and about the late seventies. You will note that all the women were registered with both an abortion register and a breast cancer register. There was no evidence to link abortion with breast cancer. If you look at the variables controlled for in that study, the sample size and other controls you would have to concede that it is pretty powerful evidence. Of course that is one of many studies that do not support your aforementioned comment. For another try a meta-analysis out of Oxford university that again found no evidence to support that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.
Posted by Coraliz, Thursday, 2 March 2006 8:44:24 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
No, But it does show a dramatic increase in Cervical Cancer rates, very steep climb indeed.
Stuffing around with Natures creation, then expect the basic principles of Quantum Physics to apply also , and it does
Posted by All-, Friday, 3 March 2006 5:51:14 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
Sorry All-, I cannot agree with you. There is no consensus on the abortion-cervical cancer link; it has not been firmly established either way. For every study showing a causal link there is another showing there is not. There are too many confounding variables that researchers have had trouble separating. Some of these are: the twofold higher incidence of cervical cancer in smokers; low exercisers have increased cervical cancer rates; individuals (yes men get breast cancer too) whose diet is low in fruit and vegetables have a higher rate; having multiple partners increases rates, usually because of contracting a HPV (100+ viruses come under this umbrella). HPV is the No 1 cause of cervical cancer. The risk factor for cervical cancer also increases with each childbirth, in a number of studies showing 2.6 times the risk after 3-4 children and nearly 4 times the risk after 6+ children.
Posted by Coraliz, Friday, 3 March 2006 10:00:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'My understanding of the reproductive process is fine Meg. What you flushed down the toilet were potential babies, just lacking the odd sperm. If your ova met up with some sperms down those sewers, are you responsible for murder ?'

Yabby, you have again shown your pitiful understanding of the human reproductive system...a sewer would not present the necessary conditions for sperm to fertilise ovum.

Yabby: 'The emotionally challenged perhaps don't understand the science, but we can't help it if some people lack an education.' Like Darwin, anyone can come up with a theory, that does not give it scientific credibility, Yabby. If you haven't had the benefit of an education, don't assume the same for the rest of us.

'You have distorted my words Meg, good Christians should not be deceptive and liars :) I never claimed that the Catholic Church plotted to support the eating of bonobos and chimps, that is simply the result of their fanaticism to create even more little Catholics.'

Sure sounds like Yabby blaming the Catholic Church for 'little Catholics' eating bonobos and chimps...distortion and deceptive lies? - again, solve the question of what they can eat, or accept they will eat what is available.

RE: 'Economist Jan 25th 2001.' You won't read Time Life's articles containing scientific proof of life, but you ask me to take an article in the Economist as if it were the bible, which you also don't accept as written truth, hmmmm, lies, damned lies and statistics used and believed when they suit, any wonder Darwin appeals to you.

RE: My 'religious buddies' and contraception - if the world felt that it was ok to kill anti-lifers, I wouldn't agree with that either because I believe only the Creator should decide when your time has come. 'my religious buddies' don't exercise my free will - I decide to choose right from wrong and I would hope that if I make choices against the teachings of Christ, that they didn't follow them either Yabby.
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 4 March 2006 1:13:23 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
Every woman wants her children to have a good life. Australia is a democracy that places high value on the individual. The individual [family] is responsible for rearing its children. The individual [family] must house its children, feed them, keep them healthy, educate them and can only send them out to work when they reach 15 years. So I think its quite reasonable for the individual [family] to judge for themselves whether they can rear the child.

We harshly judge the draconian fertility laws in Roumania that had all fertile women checked for pregnancy monthly and their unwanted spawn starved and deprived of sufficient stimuli to grow in functioning human beings reared in state orphanages.

You may have as many children as you want [or can bear] and I will pay my taxes so that they have access to health care, state education and subsidised housing - if needed. But I do not want you to impose your views on my body.
Posted by billie, Saturday, 4 March 2006 2:40:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
billie,
Sometimes society must impose values on persons for the good of the society. For instance: I know well a girl who has had four children while on heroine. The grandparents rescued the first from cigarette burns and violent abuse and she or her boyfriend drowned the second. The next two were removed at birth and placerd in adoptive homes after court rulings.

That was the State imposing values on one who did not care about acting responsibly to avoid pregnancy. Actually she wanted babies but drugs affected her judgments.

Quote, "But I do not want you to impose your views on my body."

If you continue to abort babies from unwanted pregnancies then that would indicate your lack discipline in your behaviour and value of human life. Tuberligation ought to be imposed by the State after the second unwanted child by abortion
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 4 March 2006 10:51:34 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
Philo - how about vasectomies for the males who take advantage of drug addicted women? It sure wasn't divine intervention that caused the pregnancies.

Many posters to OLO complain about the 'nannie state' - well the height of this interference of government into the lives of its citizens would have to be when politicians can place themselves above medical experts such as the TGA.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 5 March 2006 9:07:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘I do not want you to impose your views on my body’ – then Billie take responsibility for your body and the results of ALL your actions too. Abortion kills another human being, therefore you need to accept the consequences or learn more about how your reproductive system works.

You won’t accept that there will always be 16 year old girls (and others) who become pregnant and need assistance, that’s some tolerance. I doubt you are perfect yourself, so perhaps you could accept there will always be a need for imperfect humans to be given considerations for one reason or another, even you!

I am happy to fund the legitimate needs of others through taxation, but I am not happy to fund the killing of any sector of society, including the unborn.

That you refer to babies as ‘their unwanted spawn’ speaks volumes about you and your attitude towards women and their children generally – in this country there are no unwanted children, just lists of adoptive parents waiting for the privilege to accept one of these babies into their hearts and homes.

‘Sometimes society must impose values on persons for the good of the society.’ Philo makes a valid point and his tragic case history indicates clearly that there are times when people choose to make decisions that harm themselves and others…society has to care enough to protect the person and those they would otherwise harm.
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 5 March 2006 10:21:28 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
Philo “Sometimes society must impose values on persons for the good of the society.”
Meg1 “there are times when people choose to make decisions that harm themselves and others…society has to care enough to protect the person and those they would otherwise harm.”

A persons body is their body to use as they see fit, not as “society” sees fit.

Hitler used the same excuse to both threaten women who sought abortion because nazi society “cared enough”.
Mind you he used the same “protect nazi society from the danger of the Jews” to murder millions too.

It is the same old “co-dependency of the individual with society” claim

As is stated by the psychiatric profession and mental health professionals

“Codependency is a progressive disease brought about by child abuse,” www.habitsmart.com/cdpnt.htm

and

“It is also known as “relationship addiction” because people with codependency often form or maintain relationships that are one-sided”. www.nmha.org/infoctr/factsheets/43.cfm

Like those who want to create a relationship (throught decision to control) in the private lives of strangers who do not care less about the views of the unsolicited wanna-be co-dependent.

Philo state imposed “Tuberligation”
and maybe we should allow only those with strong Catholic values to breed too?
Criminalising pregnancy is a very very dangerous path to go down,

People, acting as individuals will often make mistakes of judgement.
However, the mistakes they make are personal and far less serious to when the State makes a mistake.
Giving such authority to the “state”, to sterilise parts of the population it is there to serve, is an horrendous opportunity for abuse of power, as was seem in the 1920/30 when “eugenics” was thought of as an acceptable interference “for the benefit of society”.


Meg1 “needs of others through taxation, but I am not happy to fund the killing of any sector of society, including the unborn”

And I am not happy to subsidise the pernicious efforts of RCC through tax breaks for religious organisations and free/discounted land allotments to build churches on.

I guess none of us get all we want!
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 5 March 2006 11:46:55 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
Col,
Please let us know where we can get Government funds to build Churches. I haven't become aware of such a scheme and we need to build a new Church. Sounds to me like the same old misinformation agenda against the Churches.

I put my children through a Parent controlled religious school and it cost me 6% of my gross income. Did I complain? No! I saw the benifits of the expense in the enhancement of their attitudes. I am not happy to fund an unjust war, abortion or genocide as you might be. The murder or abuse of infants is an action denounced by Jesus.

Scout I probably agree but then that is not a woman right to her own body: "Philo - how about vasectomies for the males who take advantage of drug addicted women?" Are you admitting that someone else is abusing or controling her right of choice?
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 5 March 2006 9:30:20 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, you never tire of contradicting your own babble…Hitler killed for much the same reasons as anti-lifers do now. The unborn, you argue - don’t fit, are unwanted, are disabled, their ‘spirit’ is ‘damaged’, they’re inconvenient…he was hardly pro-life either.

Philo “Sometimes society must impose values on persons for the good of the society.”
Meg1 “there are times when people choose to make decisions that harm themselves and others…society has to care enough to protect the person and those they would otherwise harm.”

Col:‘A persons body is their body to use as they see fit, not as “society” sees fit.’

So you are saying that society should impose NO rules over individuals so that they do not harm another? I notice you did not answer whether you follow road rules either, yet. Do you also think it is ok to deliberately kill in a murder-suicide, take or deal in drugs, over-indulge in drink and then drive…?

Col’s playing the mad hatter at Alice’s tea party again and re-writing dictionary definitions to boot. Check co and dependence again, Col. You need others, to whatever degree is immaterial, you are co-dependent on other humans and life-forms.

Attending psychiatric professionals does not enable you to become life’s oracle, Col.

Col: ‘Criminalising pregnancy is a very very dangerous path to go down’ – I agree Col, which is why abortion is wrong, it does just that. There’s another example of your self-contradiction!

Col: ‘People, acting as individuals will often make mistakes of judgement.
However, the mistakes they make are personal and far less serious to when the State makes a mistake.’

I guess the victims of the Bali, London, Madrid or NY’s twin tower terrorist attacks would disagree there, Col.

I have a friend who is raising her sister’s surviving daughter after a young man told his friends he was going out to kill somebody – then drove his car directly at the next vehicle he saw and killed the driver and her children, with one daughter surviving. It’s difficult to imagine any of those victims would agree either, Col
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 6 March 2006 1:22:25 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
Philo “Government funds to build Churches.”

Show me where I suggested such a thing, I did not so do not put words in my mouth.
I observed Churches and religious groups obtain “tax breaks” on the funding of their operations, which they do.

I thought better of you than to makeup words that other said.

Meg1
Unlike Philo, I expected no different from you than what you delivered.

Come on Meg1, you are getting boringly predictable.

“Co-dependence” I quoted from named websites. Argue with the website authors and the medical profession if you wish but you have no basis in reason to suggest I have “re-written” anything. It is just another of your enfeebled attempts to attack and denigrate a view which you have consistently failed to challenge with logic, meaningful argument or reason


Your leap of “logic” between someone exercising sovereignty over the resources of their own body and someone bombing other people is beyond the bounds of reality and again displays your inability to distinguish between “separate individuals” and those who are entities which are “entirely and completely dependent”.

So tell me Meg1,how does a stranger, who you do not know, have never met and whose desires, circumstances, expectations and capacities you are completely ignorant of and who could not give a stuff what you think, deciding to abort affect you or your life in any way?

How are you “effected” by things which you live in complete ignorance of ?

Is it “healthy” to pretend you should hold sway over the decisions of strangers, like some medieval potentate conducting a session of the “Star Chamber” or a aristocrat deciding on the disposition of his or her serfs?

I do not think so!

I believe such views, to a “right of authority” to control are corrupt and evil. And these are the views of the RCC (denying all women’s right to abortion),

I would be failing my personal standards if I did not stand up against the corrupt and evil.

I will not desert my moral values to appease the sensitivities of any religious denomination, Catholics included.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 6 March 2006 7:43:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, Yabby – I applauded you for your patience in this forum. Though I see that it is a little wasted on the crowd who believe only God’s way is the right way.

I’ll say this again. Those reading, try to pay attention. The crux of this debate – beyond what religion or other dogma says is this:

When does a human become a human?

Now, if you discuss this, you will find that there is no certainty in answering – nothing that can be held to be ‘beyond doubt’. Scientist hold various positions that support most ideas expressed in this forum. How can any of us state we are ‘right’?

If you are of a mind that a human exists at the point of conception, you have every right to believe this. And act as you see fit in this regard – but only for yourself. Not in regard to how someone else perceives the issue.

You could argue that in defending the unborn, you are defending those same rights granted by the rest of society to the post-born. However this argument fails as the whole of society does not agree on whether the pre-born have these rights in the first place.

If the whole of society cannot agree and the whole of the body of experts cannot agree – then it is folly for the minority to presume to be right and force your view on others.

Given this, the only one to make a judgement is the individual (i.e. the woman who is pregnant). We live in a society that values individual freedom, including freedom of religion and freedom of choice.

You may be heartbroken at the results of these choices and beliefs. You may be powerfully driven to spread the ‘truth’ as you see it – and you have the right to do so. However every individual also has the right to reject your truth and find their own.

That is the nature of the debate regarding RU486. All else is simply one ideology competing against another.
Posted by Reason, Monday, 6 March 2006 10:11:55 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
Col, you find difficulty remembering 'values' you espouse between sentences, but your assertion that the State's mistakes always affect others worse than an individual's...expect to be challenged as I have done. The statement was so outrageous as to be beneath even your usual rant.

You suggest social and political anarchy?

Try a good spell/grammar check before suggesting ignorance from others on any score.

Col: 'I would be failing my personal standards if I did not stand up against the corrupt and evil. I will not desert my moral values...'

Interesting that you talk about MORAL VALUES and PERSONAL STANDARDS...but rail and rant against others who hold their own values and standards, and stand against corruption and evil. Why? Because they differ from yours?

Hitler claimed to be righteous when he 'chose' who lived and died too...he was proven to be evil, corrupt, amoral and wrong when society found the truth and had the courage to speak out against him.

Interestingly the silent majority rose against that vocal and violent autocracy too, when they could tolerate the killing no longer...the wheel turns full circle.

Reason: 'When does a human become a human?''...there is no certainty in answering – nothing that can be held to be ‘beyond doubt’.'

If there's no certainty in deciding that human life DOESN'T begin at conception, who're you to decide against giving the benefit of the doubt to the unborn...you're deciding on a living human, whatever stage of life it's at, there's no doubt on that score. Scientific and medical proof exists on the beginning of human life - IVF alone has dismissed any arguments. Even if life is held in suspension, it remains until it's extinguished, however, it cannot be commenced by injecting life-sustaining drugs or anything else, including genetic material into a human corpse at any stage of the life span...if life isn't there, it won't commence or develop, except from conception.

You'll need a new nom de plume if you're suggesting that it's reasonable to kill based on mob rule...that's why Jesus Christ was crucified...it doesn't make it right!
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 6 March 2006 2:38:46 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
Meg,
I made no judgement as to whether life began at conception or not – and I made no judgement on whether to decide this for one’s self was right, wrong, correct or incorrect. I simply pointed out that the beginning is currently ambiguous by social standards – not yours. I made this observation about the current status quo to try to get the discussion back on track.

That you disagree does not make you or your argument right or the only valid answer. I respect that you have a position and I respect that you have the right to choose what to do regarding that position. Do you not afford others the same respect and right?

The truth of the matter is that there is no correct or right answer. If you choose to disagree with this, fine. If you choose to impose your beliefs on others or hold their point of view in contempt, that is not fine. That is tantamount to me saying ‘There is no God’ to you. I don’t need any to say there is not, but simply rely on my beliefs and values while belittling you for your faith. I think you would agree that that would be unfair and unwarranted?

I am simply asking that you refrain from imposing your beliefs and perhaps have a civilised discussion without degenerating to insults. I’m sure that Col and Yabby would do likewise if we all agreed that insults do a discussion no good at all.

If you claim to be a good Christian, perhaps you may take a little time to look at yourself and think about why you insulted me. Where did I do so to you?
Posted by Reason, Monday, 6 March 2006 3:54:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reason, you claim to have been insulted – surely you mean corrected…see above post!

Reason argues: ‘this argument fails as the whole of society does not agree on whether the pre-born have these rights in the first place.
If the whole of society cannot agree and the whole of the body of experts cannot agree – then it is folly for the minority to presume to be right and force your view on others.
Given this, the only one to make a judgement is the individual’

First you argue that the whole of society or the body of experts should agree what is right…not a minority – then you flip and pass YOUR judgment that the INDIVIDUAL should make the judgment…isn’t one a MINORITY?

REASON: ‘I made no judgement on whether to decide this for one’s self was right, wrong, correct or incorrect.’
Reason: ‘You could argue that in defending the unborn…However this argument fails’

Sounds like judgments to me…also sounds like you ‘imposing your beliefs’… etc.

Reason: ‘every individual also has the right to reject your truth and find their own’

Your lack of ‘reason’ beggers belief – truth, whatever it is, is universal…it doesn’t require you or I to agree with it first. Neither of us OWN it, nor can we manipulate it to suit our own convenience…it is nonsensical to suggest that your comment, therefore, can be regarded as reasoned debate.

You applaud Col and Yabby’s ‘patience’ but deprecatingly say, ‘a little wasted on the crowd who believe only God’s way is the right way.’

I’m still waiting for Col or Yabby’s ‘patience’, civility or reasonable debate, to be expressed in their posts. It appears you lose any sense of ‘reason’ unless the point of view agrees with your own or do you argue your case believing that your way is the WRONG way? Curious.
(Cont...)
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 11:36:34 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
Reason thanks for the statement of support.

“Though I see that it is a little wasted on the crowd who believe only God’s way is the right way.”

I would disagree with you.

I do not believe, for one minute, we are talking about “Gods way”.

If we were the way would be that “abortion” would be a technical impossibility.

“Gods way”, I believe is to leave individuals to make their own choice.
I believe God gave us free will to exercise and “grow” as individuals through making decisions and then living with the consequences of those decisions.

I believe this applies to all aspects of the “human life experience”, not just abortion.

I believe the “anti-abortion” demand is a power play by a religious organisation and its congregants to interfere in the freewill of others, as has been the style and expectation of that religious organisation for centuries.

I believe the arguments equating murder versus abortion are flawed because one applies to an action between two separate individuals (murder) and the other between one individual and an adjoined entity (the embryo / foetus) which has not achieved “individuality” through separation (birth).

Re “when does a human become a human”. The ovum and sperm are both of “human” source. The embryo is “human” but that is not the point. The issue is “when does the “human” entity evolve to a point of warranting the common rights applicable to all?

On that matter I believe it is simple.
When the human entity breaks from its total dependence on another “specific” entity (the pregnant woman) and that is the moment of birth.

And you are absolutely right. RU486 is merely an alternative method and nothing “unique” in the development of the abortion debate.

Meg1
“You'll (Reason) need a new nom de plume”
“Reason, you claim to have been insulted – surely you mean corrected”
“I’m still waiting for Col or Yabby’s ‘patience’, civility or reasonable debate, to be expressed in their posts.”

Ah Meg1, You like to spread it about but cannot deal with receiving it. Typical of your ilk!
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 2:29:08 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
Phil your logic is not clear.
On the one hand you tell me to take responsibility for my actions then tell the forum about a heroin addicted woman who had 4 children she wasn't able to rear.
Posted by billie, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 3:34:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
billie,
Just because you did not get my point: my example was to demonstrate that the State and others make decisions on the behalf of sick or irresponsible women who are emotionally imbalanced or will not act socially responsible. NSW laws forbid abortion on all grounds unless it affects the physical or emotional health of the woman.

Because of the frequent use of abortion as a contraceptive it indicates under NSW laws that we have a physical and emotionally sick society. Many sick and emotionally endangered women themselves wish to push to increase as a right to abort their infant.

Col,
According to your definition: "I believe the arguments equating murder versus abortion are flawed because one applies to an action between two separate individuals (murder) and the other between one individual and an adjoined entity (the embryo / foetus) which has not achieved “individuality” through separation (birth)... On that matter I believe it is simple. When the human entity breaks from its total dependence on another “specific” entity (the pregnant woman) and that is the moment of birth."

That would mean one minute before the birth it would not be murder to decapitate the infant, but would be murder to decapitate the infant one minute after the infant took a breath. However you definition continues to individual equal rights. Which would not happen under Australian law till the child became 18 years of age, and as an individual sign a legal contract or accept full rights as a human citizen
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 7:23:30 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
(cont)

Well said Philo!

Reason: 'When does a human become a human?''...no certainty in answering – nothing that can be held to be ‘beyond doubt’.'

(Me) If there's no certainty in deciding that human life DOESN'T begin at conception, who're you to decide against giving the benefit of the doubt to the unborn... Scientific and medical proof exists…life won’t commence or develop, except from conception.

You'll need a new nom de plume if you're suggesting that it's reasonable to kill based on mob rule...that's why Jesus Christ was crucified...it doesn't make it right!

REASON: ‘refrain from imposing your beliefs…have a civilised discussion without degenerating to insults. I’m sure that Col and Yabby would do likewise if we all agreed that insults do a discussion no good at all. If you claim to be a good Christian… think about why you insulted me... Where did I do so to you?’

Good luck with Yabby and Col's revamping...

If you’re sensitive to correction, don’t suggest it’s insulting as it’s not un-Christian to point out the truth, or defend myself from inaccurate accusations.

Otherwise refrain from making accusations you can’t back up, then check your dictionary’s definition of ‘truth’ and ‘reason’…add ‘insult’ and ‘judgment’ so that you can follow the same definitions for everyone.

Col: 'The issue is “when does the “human” entity evolve to a point of warranting the common rights applicable to all?...I believe it is simple…human entity breaks from its total dependence on another “specific” entity (the pregnant woman)…that is the moment of birth.'

Oracle Col chooses when life begins…however another contradiction - a newborn, infant, or even an unconscious accident victim are all ‘totally dependent on another “specific” entity’…by your call they do not warrant common rights applicable to ‘all’. See also Philo's comment above.

Col: ‘You like to spread it about but cannot deal with receiving it.’

Actually Col, I didn't complain…REASON spat the dummy…but check your own posts and 'fess up...it's you who can’t take your own medicine dished back.
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 10:39:22 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
Philo – “one minute before the birth it would not be murder to decapitate the infant”

the point of distinction is “separation” and thus “individuality”.

However, your suggestion can be answered

Your suggestion is stupidly nonsensical.

No woman would seek to endure 9 months of pregnancy only to abort on a murderous whim at the last moment.

No one, in control of their senses (ie without diminished capacity or a howling loony), would seek to do it. Therefore, it is a complete and utter red herring, lacking in any credibility and devoid of all reason.

It suggests lack of substance and paucity of rationale when you are reduced to suggestion infantile and ridiculous charades.

Do you really expect me to indulge such deluded fantasy with any serious intent?

In a similar manner, we can apply such reasoned logic to the matter of late term abortions. No woman and her doctor would undertake such a course of action unless the circumstances were considered “extremely prejudicial” to her ongoing safety and as the only option.

If anyone wants to know what can happen when PBA s and late abortions are not performed when needed , just go to

www.fistulafoundation.org

and read about what really happens if “nature” is left to take its course and then thank your lucky stars you live in Australia, where medical intervention is an option.

Meg1 “Col's rule: lower the standard until you're forced to stop?”

You are like a limbo dancer, the lower you drop the bar the more you feel you are achieving.

As for “infant, or even an unconscious accident victim are all ‘totally dependent on another “specific” entity’”

Oh how absolutely and totally WRONG!

Plenty of children have been born to women who died in childbirth. Their life continued because, like accident victims, whilst they were dependent upon someone, any one of a potentially large number of “wet-nurses” or carers -

They were not dependent upon “A SPECIFIC ENTITY”

I have been gentle and restrained with you thus far, keep it up and I might forget that you might possibly be almost a woman.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 12:39:25 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
RE: Limbo dancing Col…it’s been a while, oh oracle of self-restraint. If you don’t want to be corrected, then don’t post statements that disprove themselves.

‘However, your suggestion can be answered

Your suggestion is stupidly nonsensical.’

Oops, watch out Col…that answer will cost you your ‘oracle’ status – as answers go, that one really stinks!

’No woman would seek to endure 9 months of pregnancy only to abort on a murderous whim at the last moment. No one, in control of their senses (ie without diminished capacity or a howling loony), would seek to do it. Therefore, it is a complete and utter red herring, lacking in any credibility and devoid of all reason. No woman and her doctor would undertake such a course of action unless the circumstances were considered “extremely prejudicial” to her ongoing safety and as the only option.’

Col, you are sadly mistaken…there are women who will because of: 1. Sex of the child. 2. A discovered disability, etc...Yes, some doctors will kill full-term babies…

The child is partly delivered, given a lethal injection through the ‘soft spot’ in the head and delivered normally…theory debunked, Col.

Other viable babies are dropped into buckets of water on delivery, removing ‘risk’ of survival.

Full-term babies delivered by at-risk mothers are normally viable - aborted or live, baby is still delivered. Therefore procuring baby's death is irrelevant to saving mother. I’ve been there more than once and many times in a support role. Debunked again, Col.

RE: ‘A SPECIFIC ENTITY’ All of these people are totally dependent on a specific entity at any one time…that entity may change personhood, but they are TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON A SPECIFIC ENTITY at any one time.

…‘PLENTY’ of Australian women DON”T die in childbirth Col, that's fallacy and killing viable babies of at-risk mothers is counter-productive.

‘I have been gentle and restrained with you thus far, keep it up and I might forget that you might possibly be almost a woman.’

Does that mean you’ve more to say Col? Avoid threats, stick to FACTS, I don’t bully easily.
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 12:30:21 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
Meg1, I’ll try to address each of your comments. You may want to look back to match them up…

* I do not believe I flipped and pass judgement. If you read my post, I stated that the individual should be allowed to judge for themselves in relation to matter pertaining to themselves. That is all. I at no time passed any judgement on another’s actions and did not state that one should judge for another. How is it you come by this interpretation?

* As to truth, it is not universal. Simply look at the myriad of religions on the planet. You claim to know truth? So how is it you and your particular denomination are right and roughly 4 billion are wrong? Please, this is probably the problem with your perspective. Claiming universal truth and right smacks of pride and hubris. I never claimed to be right or know truth. IN fact I made that clear. Please, again, how did you come by this interpretation.

* On the point for applauding Col and Yabby, I concede I was siding more with them. I apologise and will keep an eye on myself in this regard. As to waiting on Col and Yabby, perhaps, again, you could review your own language and tone. I recall a parable regarding splinters and logs…
(Cont)...
Posted by Reason, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 3:10:52 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
(Cont)…
* Regarding the beginning of life, yes I totally agree that you may give them the benefit of the doubt – as is your right and belief. My point was that it was for each individual to decide this as we all have totally different points of view and the decision only impacts upon the mother and potential being – no one else.

* Again with the insults – I know a slight when I see one. Please try not to be condescending. I don’t believe it does discussion/debate any good. And they are not corrections. That is facile and only exposing you to be evasive and hiding behind a word to cover your error of moral judgement. It is truly not un-Christian to point out errors but it is to use denigration and cheap insults.

* As to the definitions, I do know them and again, poor form on your behalf.

If you call what I wrote, spitting the dummy, I can see that you are beyond having a civilised discussion. Good luck with your life. I have no need to be nasty or unkind. I moved beyond that many years ago.
Posted by Reason, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 3:11:02 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
Col,
The fact is a boyfriend jumped on the stomach of his pregnant girlfriend during her last weeks of the pregnancy to deliberately kill the baby in 2004. Which he did. But he could not be charged with murder in NSW because the laws hold your position.
_____________________

Many members of Parliament do not understand how RU486 works. It involves two drugs: mifepristone, which kills the unborn child, no matter how old it is up to nine weeks, and misoprostol, which is taken a few days later and causes the uterus to contract and expel the dead baby.

It is amazing that even the chairman of the company that developed and manufactured RU486, Mr Edouard Sakiz, admitted: The RU486 is not easy to use — a woman who wants to end her pregnancy has to live with the dead baby in her womb for at least a week after using this technique. It's an appalling psychological ordeal.

We should not underestimate the threat to the health of pregnant women. The concern I have is that referring this drug to the Therapeutic Goods Administration is inconsistent. Therapeutic treatment is based on the concept of healing and no-one pretends that RU486 has anything to do with healing. When a pregnant woman takes RU486 for the purpose of inducing an abortion, the drug is not being used to cure or to treat an illness; it is being used to terminate a healthy child.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 9:47:50 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
Philo, you continue to use melodramatic language, to promote your cause. A 12 week old organsim, does not have a human brain. It does not think or feel. So its not a child. A child is a person, ie. it has a human brain that thinks and feels.

Women can create around 400 human organisms in their lifetime. The fact remains, not all can survive, those are natures laws.

You are free to use melodramatic language if you wish. Just be aware that we know that you do, so it does not enhance your argument.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 11:03:58 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
Well said Philo, informative TRUTH!

Reason:

1. ‘First you argue the WHOLE OF SOCIETY or body of experts should agree what’s right…NOT A MINORITY – then you flip and pass YOUR judgment that the INDIVIDUAL should make the judgment…isn’t ONE a MINORITY?’ That’s a flip Reason.

2. CLAIMING truth or right does not MAKE it so…whoever claims it. Truth is universal – without depending on you or I to say so.

Truth isn’t dependent on any one winning debates. If there are 100 Billion people arguing dogs only walk on two legs, it won’t make them do so…the TRUTH is dogs walk on four legs, no matter whether you or I accept that truth.

3. Yes, expect correction when you make baseless accusations.

4. ‘it was for each individual to decide this… the decision only impacts upon the mother and potential being – no one else’

SEE No 1 above…flip, flop, you’ve done it again. Which is it, minority makes the judgment or majority rules?

Where’s the baby’s (2ndindividual's) decision?

5. ‘I know a slight when I see one. Please try not to be condescending.’

My Quote: ‘Otherwise refrain from making accusations you can’t back up, then check your dictionary’s definition of ‘truth’ and ‘reason’…add ‘insult’ and ‘judgment’ so that you can follow the same definitions for everyone.’

You made accusations, it is reasonable to ask you to use the same definitions for all…when passing judgment.

6.‘I have no need to be nasty or unkind. I moved beyond that many years ago.’

You allege ‘insults’, condescension, nastiness, unkindness, etc. to perceived opponents – untruthfully - then admit supporting those of like ilk, who exemplify the lot…add bigotry.

I read pro-life posters being treated contemptuously, then with outrage when any dares to defend against the crude bullying.

I regard bullying as very poor form, Reason…if you don’t like that, don’t support the perpetrators and then falsely accuse to reinforce the bullying.

Playing the ‘victim’ doesn’t convince me you’ve any grounds for complaint.
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 11:05:56 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
Yabby,
When a woman discovers she is pregnant, she says, "I'm going to have a baby!" She does not refer to the cells in her womb as a "brainless organism" as you suppose. I suggest you tell the mother: "no its not a human child that you have!"
Quote, "A 12 week old organsim, does not have a human brain. It does not think or feel. So its not a child. A child is a person, ie. it has a human brain that thinks and feels."

Your ignorance of the feelings of the 12 week formed child is appalling. I suggest you observe with medical imagaging the muscular convulsions a 12 week formed baby expresses as it is surgically extracted. It is alive and the general purpose of surgical or chemical abortion is to kill that life. These are the facts, you may not like to see them as facts as it makes your conscience squirm
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 9 March 2006 6:19:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

When I found out I was pregnant my first reaction was to cry. My doctor was attempting to congratulate me while I sat on the surgery floor in tears. I was pregnant to a cruel, manipulative man who I was trying to escape from. I could no more bring an innocent child into that environment than I could hit a kitten.

So my first thought was "Oh SH*T".

And, caring so much for children as I do, I went ahead and had abortion. I have escaped from my ex and I know I saved at least two lives from torment.

Might I suggest that you, as a male, not attempt to state what women feel when pregnant. You will never know and never understand.
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 9 March 2006 9:25:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Philo – “The fact is a boyfriend jumped on the stomach of his pregnant girlfriend”

Oh you were referring to an action by a third party.

It is only now that you mention it.

I thought an abortion was about the woman, in whose body the embryo is developing, choice, not her partners.

RU386 is a tablet which the woman takes, not her partner.

You need to make the circumstances of the action clearer, although, obviously you would not want to do that because “clarity” would have destroyed the basis of your observation.

The fact that the boyfriend committed serious criminal assault on the woman is an entirely different set of circumstances to the woman, almost ready to give birth being faced with a dilemma of such proportions that she has to consider abortion.

Keep up the deception Philo, that is what you have done, used low stealth and deceit to gain an advantage, then what is new in that strategy from Pro-Lifers who use the wrath of God to threaten and intimidate, as alternatives to reason and respect.

Next time you bring any topic to debate I will expect full disclosure all the circumstances, you are obviously incapable of deploying “truth” in debate.

I note Meg1 is quick to support Philo’s use of deception in the pursuit of Pro-Life tyranny.


Scout – I doubt you waited until you were 8 months gone when you aborted.

Even Suggesting it sounds brutal of me and I apologise to you for that but saying it cannot be avoided. I have no doubt the decision you made, based on the circumstances you faced was necessary for you. What I or anyone else thinks does not matter, we are ignorant of your circumstances and not responsible for your actions.

You are absolutely correct, as a male I cannot appreciate how a woman might feel.

Yet as a human being, I value the right of choice over myself which I exercise and I seek to empower everyone else with the same right of choice, equally, regardless of gender.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 9 March 2006 12:40:23 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
Philo, muscles can move as a reflex action, with a head on a body or not. They respond to electrical impulses. To feel pain you need a brain that is conscious and aware. A 12 week old organsim is neither
conscious or aware, the brain structures are not yet in place.

You are free to use emotive rhetoric, which most in the anti choice
movement do, as they simply don't understand the science and are engulfed by their emotions. The thing is, on a forum like OLO, where rational debate over the rights of others takes place, it would be nice if the standard was at least at a level of being a little bit rational and not just emotional rhetoric.

If you are promoting the removal of peoples rights to make their own decisions about their lives, you are going to have to have some extremely well thought out reasons for justifying those actions,
not just religious dogma and a lack of scientific understanding of the issues, coloured by melodramatic language.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 9 March 2006 2:39:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg,

1. I did not say that all society or body of experts should agree. I stated that if both could not, how is the definition to be found – except in the eyes of the individual. I did not state that my judgement should stand for any other except myself – just as your should stand for no other except yourself. Just where do I flip in that? Understand what I am saying. I am not taking any point of view, simply trying to discuss the issue.

2. A specious argument regarding dogs and four legs does not equate to truths regarding religion and like subjective matter. I know you have exceptional faith, however this does not make you absolutely right. This attitude is what is leading to bombs killing civilians. Can you not see the similarity in this position? I would never deny you your truth regarding God and your position on abortion. Just don’t tell me it is the final and absolute. There are many who would as vehemently tell you yours is wrong. Again, can you not see the similarity?

3. I expect corrections, however still regard your statements as your opinion only. Hence any implied inability to argue reason or otherwise on your part is not a correction, simply an insult. And I made no ‘baseless accusations’ – I simply pointed out what you were doing.

4. Again with the flip flop? So, see above. As to the baby’s decision. I don’t believe the potential being requires one. That is our difference. Why can’t you accept that I see things different you? What is so hard about that?

5. & 6. At no time have I treated you with contempt. That I disagree is not contempt. That you find someone disagrees as contempt is your issue. I apologised for the initial comment regarding Col and Yabby, stand corrected and am trying to discuss things reasonably. That you won’t says a lot about you. I have never bullied or treated you with anything but respect.

I still don’t see any grounds for your unkindness…
Posted by Reason, Thursday, 9 March 2006 5:44:20 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
Reason, you should re-read my post and your own…see 1, 2, etc…

Your spurious and malicious invective regarding –‘This attitude is what is leading to bombs killing civilians...’, deserves to be treated with little more than contempt.

In fact, your attitude of supporting the rabid aggression, threats and intimidation and tossing in a few inaccurate accusations of your own holds more similarities with the attitude prevalent amongst those barbarians…

You are applying a similar rational to killing the unborn as terrorists are applying to their innocent victims…even the terminology and justifications are similar…

RE: Truth does not require belief. If it is truth then it will be proven…at some stage…think it through reason.

RE: ‘flip-flop’ ‘ Which is it, minority makes the judgment or majority rules? You advocate BOTH! ‘ Pretty clear where the flip, flop is…you can’t logically advocate both…

’You allege ‘insults’, condescension, nastiness, unkindness, etc. to perceived opponents – untruthfully - then admit supporting those of like ilk, who exemplify the lot…add bigotry.

I read pro-life posters being treated contemptuously, then with outrage when any dares to defend against the crude bullying.

I regard bullying as very poor form, Reason…if you don’t like that, don’t support the perpetrators and then falsely accuse to reinforce the bullying.

Playing the ‘victim’ doesn’t convince me you’ve any grounds for complaint.’

Refer to the above…and check on the similarities in your arguments and those of your ilk to those used to support the acts of terrorism on the innocent…what was that about splinters in someone else’s eye, careful the logs aren’t dislodged when you blink.

Yabby you talk of emotive rhetoric and hyperventilate if you suspect that anyone regards chimps or bonobos as lesser beings...hypocrisy or misguided emotion?...probably both.
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 10 March 2006 2:11:29 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
Scout,
Sorry to hear that your niavity of how babies are formed and unpreparedness to avoid a pregnancy caused you such distress. I am sorry to hear your reason for the termination of your child was because the father was an absolute thug. The wisdom of that experience would be; be sure you know the character of the person with whom you share the intimacy of your sexual life and dreams.

To the doctor the usual experience of pregnancy was a happy experience for a pregnant mother. However any prepared, secure and informed mother desiring a child would normally rejoice with the doctor. The wisdom of planning a family as husband and wife to have a child is demonstrated - contrasted to tears and fear and terminating of a life.

Quote, "When I found out I was pregnant my first reaction was to cry. My doctor was attempting to congratulate me while I sat on the surgery floor in tears. I was pregnant to a cruel, manipulative man who I was trying to escape from. I could no more bring an innocent child into that environment than I could hit a kitten."

Col,
My use of the example of the boyfriend not being able to be charged with murder was to demonstrate that persons holding your position that human life begins at birth cannot be charged with murder on a child prior taking the first breath. I assume you realise that it is a third person who takes the life of a late term pregnancy - the abortionist doctor severing the head of the child

My position is that if any person [includind abortionist doctors] who deliberately terminate the life of an unborn child after conception unless for the healthy survival of the baby or mother is guilty of murder.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 10 March 2006 9:29:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

I try very hard to refrain from personal insult on these pages, however you have really overstepped any entitlement to respect with this:

"Sorry to hear that your niavity (sic) of how babies are formed and unpreparedness to avoid a pregnancy caused you such distress."

On another thread I posted that I WAS ON THE PILL at the time I fell pregnant - however even if I wasn't using a contraceptive there is no excuse at all for such comment.

WHY?

1. You know nothing of how I came to be involved with my then husband.
2. You do not know that like many abusers he did not have a SIGN TATTOOED ON HIS FOREHEAD stating that he was a bad choice! Many people who did not have to live with the SOB thought he was charming!

It is to my CREDIT and COURAGE I managed to escape this man in one piece. That I am still here today to be the butt of your verbal abuse and insincere "sorry to hear" is a result of my ability to survive.

Had I continued with my pregnancy I would've been guilty of child abuse not by my own hand but by bringing an innocent child into a dreadful relationship. There are too many children already who suffer abuse of all varieties and I am PROUD that I have not contributed to those sad statistics.

Col, Reason, Yabby et al please continue the fight, these sanctimonious control freaks need to be kept in check. They cause as much misery as abusive spouses. They do not care one wit about life only their dogmatic control over the lives of others.

I have never been so angry before on this website. In conclusion I can only point out that the ignorance and sheer stupity of Philo's judgemental post has revealed him for what he is.

I will, in future, read his posts with his sneering abuse in mind - he has lost any credibility he may have had and I have no doubt that many others on this website will agree with me.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 10 March 2006 10:34:51 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
Hear Hear Scout.
Posted by Laurie, Friday, 10 March 2006 11:05:24 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
Meg,
Your inability to conduct a fair and sensible discussion leave me no choice but to ignore you. Feel free to claim whatever victory you like – that you cannot see discussion as any more than attack is your own problem.

I have not once attacked you personally, or your beliefs. I simply wished to discuss the issue in a broadminded way. I transgressed and apologised regarding my comment on religion. You have ignored that and now use it to reiterate an attack on yourself. Very Christian.

Best of luck Meg. Enjoy your life. I have nothing further to say to you regarding this matter, except that ignorance is bliss…

Scout,
My sympathies on the ignorance of those who cannot look beyond their narrow, fear induced world view. I have always respected and admired your sincerity and patience on this forum. You again substantiate the initial comment that incurred Meg’s ire for me. I look forward to your future comments and agree that sometimes the best way to deal with ignorance is to ignore the ignorant.

Philo,
Such obvious superiority in your words just proves that Christianity is easily claimed and hardly ever a reality. I would hope an apology (if you can at all manage it) is forthcoming and a little humility is learned.

I am always willing to discuss what I do not believe or understand in a reasonable way. Any anti-abortionists who can do so, please feel free to dialogue with me.
Posted by Reason, Friday, 10 March 2006 11:19:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"My position is that if any person [includind abortionist doctors] who deliberately terminate the life of an unborn child after conception unless for the healthy survival of the baby or mother is guilty of murder."

Your position also shows why we need to keep the religiously obsessed out of Australian politics Philo. For when they put religious dogma ahead of our ability to reason, religious tyranny
is not far away. Get out your dictionary and see for yourself.
A zygote is not a person, murder applies to people, not to organisms.

Both Osama bin Laden and the Christian Church makes claims about their respective truths and what floated down from the heavens to them. At times both want to force us to accept their dogma. Both have no right to try to do that. We tolerate freedom of religion,
but we also want to be free from religious intrusion in our lives.
Religion's role is as a lifestyle choice, no more
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 10 March 2006 2:34:55 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
From my occasional post on the abortion issue, I'm sure it's obvious to all that I am strongly pro-choice. In fact I'm pro-choice on probably all the so-called moral issues, where participation [or not] is by consent, adult consent if appropriate, and no-one else is unreasonably affected.

I post on a number of forums, on various subjects, and I stick strongly to the principle that I do not feed trolls. I am not suggesting that any of the anti-choice posters are trolls, in the usual sense, but some [not all] of them exhibit some remarkably troll-like characteristics. And that's why I will not respond to them directly and rarely indirectly.

But I certainly admire Yabby, Col and others for their reasoned responses and Scout for defending herself with dignity against almost unbelievably insulting, unfeeling arrogance.
Posted by Rex, Friday, 10 March 2006 3:04:50 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
Yabby,
I note you persist with your opinion that a fully chromosomed conceived human is not a living human until it breathes for itself. That is your right but it does not reflect the reality I observe.

That tiny form will never become a monkey even if transplanted into a monkey. And a tiny form of a monkey will never become a human if transplanted into the womb of a woman. It is a human being with potential as been previously stated, and not a potential human. Even as a newborn is a human with potential.

That Scout does not prefer to learn lessons from the hard experiences of her life is her decision. Scout introduced her experiences into the discussion as statements of fact to uphold her opinion. If she feels hurt by the discussion ensuing and the wisdom that could be learned from her decisions is not merely a religion that falls from heaven, but the effects of decisions made without preparedness for the consequences.

I've had to counsell young women who have been physically abused by their husband to take out court orders to restrict his abuse. So if the husband becomes violent toward themselves or the children they can call the police. Violence can be restricted by court orders, and a night in clink gives the husband time to think and cool down. These relationships are now well managed and there are children involved in reasonable families. In fact the children support their mothers and are achievers at school and in their lives.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 10 March 2006 9:40:55 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
Philo,
Feel proud that your kind of Christianity has done more to turn people from your God than any other…
Posted by Reason, Friday, 10 March 2006 11:04:52 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
Philo “My position is that if any person [including abortionist doctors] who deliberately terminate the life of an unborn child after conception unless for the healthy survival of the baby or mother is guilty of murder.”

The abortion doctor is bound by the Hippocratic oath.

You do ignorant of specific circumstances and thus, are not competently equipped to pass judgement on what happens in a doctors surgery.

Your analysis is flawed
Your supposition is false
Your judgement invalid
Your opinion not worth a hoot.

In these things what you post resembles the diatribe of vitriol we have come to expect from Meg1.

I suggest you lift your game, reading a few of the other posts on this thread, other people are likewise noting your decline into the fanciful world of religious fervour.

Scout “continue the fight”

For me it is not just about abortion. Abortion is merely a flash point. The debate is about recognising that the individual is not subordinate to society or social order but society and social orders only exist to support the individual.

Rex – I think I could (and should) learn from your suggestion re trolls – this old dog is prepared to try a new trick or two :-)

Re moral issues and consenting adults – agree totally. Only through considering choices, making decisions and living with the outcomes do we develop as individual human beings.

Philo, your belief in court orders is novel. About 5 years ago, the police only just managed to get to my partner (of the past 4 years) in time to stop her abusive ex from choking her to death (previous occasions she had suffered a broken jaw and perforated eardrum as well as lesser bruising).

Restraining orders only work on those who actually care enough to read them.

I pale at the thought of you counselling anyone. Those seeking counselling need support, reinforcement of their self esteem and unconditional love. I see nothing like it in your posts.

Reason “Philo, Feel proud that your kind of Christianity…”

Agree. But the sanctimonious just don’t see it.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 11 March 2006 6:39:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I note you persist with your opinion that a fully chromosomed conceived human is not a living human until it breathes for itself. That is your right but it does not reflect the reality I observe."

Philo, I'm not sure if you don't have the intelligence to understand the science or if you purposefully invent words for me. I've never mentioned breathing anywhere. You then jabber on about monkeys for some reason, no good reason.

A person has a functioning human brain. When Philo's brain stops,
he will be a corpse, no more a person. Before Philo had a functioning brain, he was a human organism, not a person. Nobody is denying that human organisms contain human dna. So what? In your life you would have flushed billions and billions of little sperms, all human organisms, down your toilet. So what? Women can create 400 little human organsims in their lifetimes, most are flushed down toilets, they can't all survive, thats the reality.

Now which ever way you try to twist things, organsims are not children or people, no matter how much religious zealotry you try to use to twist things. A piece of steel is a piece of steel, not a car, its a potential car. Same with organsims, they are potential people, not yet people.

Fyi, as a human, you Philo are classified as a primate, in the same part of the evolutionary tree as bonobos and chimps. In fact you share 99% of your dna with them, so are more closely related to them, then they are to gorillas. Get used to it Philo, they are your long lost relatives :)
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 11 March 2006 11:24:53 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
Hey Philo!

You have such nerve to twist and manipulate everyones words dont you?

NOT once did i say that it would be the governments fault if a girl fell pregges and wouldnt be able to have an abortion cos of it!

Quite frankly i think that as ive said before its up to the woman and the woman only not the friggin government! But abortion is legal in australia and so it should stay legal! the only thing that has changed is the method and now that is legal and has been approved anyway so there is nothin you can do about it.

Guess what Phillo im also a Christian and your judgemental attitude disgusts me! People like you are the ones who give us christians a bad name!! You should nt be the one to judge its not your place but Gods place!

What eva the woman does is her business and its between her and God.
He will judge us accordingly and to our circumstances and im sure that
he wont condemn an abortion if the 'child' was going to be born in to a negative and painful life more than a positive life!

Dont you dare twist my words or make me look like the bad one here!

Thank you very much.

Moni.

Ps Scout,Reason and Meg good onya for getting stuck into Phillo
Not all christians are like him!
Posted by Moni, Saturday, 11 March 2006 10:48:57 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
Reason: Only the most obtuse or unreasonable would suggest similarity to terrorist bombings directed at someone protecting innocent life against attack, was REASONable.

If that’s your idea of ‘discussion’, your decision to take-your-bat-and-ball-and-go-home is probably wise…

‘I have not once attacked you personally, or your beliefs…I transgressed and apologised regarding my comment on religion.’

You've done both, repeatedly (refer posts) and supported others who did likewise. Your apology was ‘for applauding Col and Yabby, I concede I was siding more with them. I apologise...will keep an eye on myself in this regard.’…not religion.

Blatant untruthfulness requires response.

Although Rex appears to support your view that anything goes if it’s what he wants to hear…

RE: consent Rex, there’s none from the unborn…they’re certainly affected unreasonably. …‘unbelievably insulting, unfeeling arrogance’ describes much that has been proffered by your ilk, but hardly describes comments to Scout…mild by your comrades continuing examples.

Have you used your post to exemplify ‘trolling’…?

Reason, The claim was that TRUTH IS universal…it IS!

RE: ‘broadmindedness’ …keep working on it…once you understand the meaning.

You claim ‘ignorance is bliss’…you’re the expert and a clear winner there!

RE: ‘raising my ire’…you asked ‘when a human becomes a human’ … the majority (society,etc.) should decide, then the individual should…(flip-flop) - irrelevant to Scout’s post other than majority should have decided for Scout? Or Scout (the individual)…you couldn’t decide.

Failure of pill-Yabby, strike against the pill-not NFP.

Scout, you claim control of ‘your body’, Philo justifiably pointed out your inconsistencies. You raised personal details, yet repeatedly accuse pro-lifers of intruding …are you asking to be credited or declared a martyr for choosing to abort?

Whatever circumstances – two wrongs won’t make a right and it doesn’t help to say ‘what you want to hear’.

You learn from mistakes by acknowledgment. Your case vs there are many single mothers and also adoption.

Baby wasn’t the problem, your relationship with your husband was. Baby suffered the consequences.

You’ll find more empathy amongst other women who‘ve resolved their abortion distress, than seeking justification amongst those who would use you like a flag.
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 12 March 2006 4:01:25 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
(cont...)

Pregnancy support services across the country are non-denominational, non-sectarian. They offer post-abortion counseling services and support for pregnant women and mothers.

Philo, your own work experiences clearly indicate the difficult decisions, when responsibly dealt with,can be overcome and turned around…benefiting all involved.

How is it none of the anti-lifers seem willing or capable of putting yourselves out to support (other than with invective and bile) the women most involved in this issue?

Perhaps because with no belief in Heaven, they’ve no time for consideration of others…’eat, drink and be merry…’. Sad, isn’t it?

Reason – you’re way off the mark re: Philo. If he helps families resolve problems using ‘his kind of Christianity’, they’re likely to seek it out for themselves, especially if it’s re-united their family.

Yabby, re: Osama Bin Laden…both of you support separating the heads of live humans from their bodies…pro-lifers don’t sacrifice lives of innocents, anti-lifers do. So does Osama and his terrorists.

Check your terminology and excuses for killing – are they written from the same script? Neither of you likes Catholics or Christian religions either.

Col: ‘Your opinion not worth a hoot.’

…but your’s is?

‘…support, reinforcement of their self esteem and unconditional love…’

I see none in yours.

Who’s yabbering on about monkeys for no good reason? What’s that about bonobos and chimps, Yabby?

As for ‘a piece of steel’ being a ‘potential car’…apart from being inanimate, it can potentially be many things. A conceived human life remains a human life with potential…get the difference?

Moni, I am unaware of your previous post, but

1. Abortion is not legal in Australia

2. RU486 is not approved for use in Australia and comments from the drug companies indicate they are unlikely to import due to ‘risks’ associated

3. Philo, like others, has posted relevant comments - I support his right to do so.

Jesus Christ defended the innocent unborn too and was crucified for his efforts...not a lot has changed in 2000 years, has it?
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 12 March 2006 4:10:50 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
Meg, as usual your religious dogma prevents you from clear thinking, but then that is to be expected from you. At some point you have to accept natural law, ie. that far more individuals of any species will be created then can ever survive, due to lack of resources. When the ecosystem can’t sustainably provide those resources anymore, that ecosystem will eventually collapse, taking that species with it. But as that’s all far too complex for you to get your mind around, we’ll stick to simpler issues.

Firstly bonobos and chimps are primates, not monkeys. With your knowledge of biology, you clearly don’t know the difference. Humans are primates too btw.

Secondly you don’t have a clue as to what those of us who post on here do
or don’t do for others. You just brag loudly about it, others of us come on here to debate, not to brag. So its arrogant and stupid of you to make those claims. Most services in Aus are actually financed by taxpayers, who generally spend 40% of their time working to pay tax. Govts spend 40% of GDP. Get it?

Sad isn’t it, that you only do good for others because you believe in heaven.

A piece of steel has potential Meg. Dividing cells and organisms are just that,
they are not people. You are free to become emotionally engulfed by cells,
but don’t expect the rest of us to be quite so irrational. Life is not limited by
the amount of cells around, its limited by the resources around. The Vatican
is free to sell its billions in assets to feed those starving babies, if they really cares about them.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 12 March 2006 6:32:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg,
Your one premises for all this is that there is a universal truth and that this give you the knowledge to act as you do.

Can you please provide me evidence of this universal truth? Contrary to your beliefs of me (unsubstantiated as they are) I am open-minded and am willing to consider anything you may have to say, to further my own knowledge. So, please feel free to assist me.

Until we sort this out, there is no point in discussing anything else.
Posted by Reason, Sunday, 12 March 2006 12:07:55 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
Yabby, re: Natrual Law…why is it you can’t accept natural law for your chimp friends?

...just for human babies.

However, there’s nothing natural about abortion…rather unnatural for any species to contemplate, let alone perpetrate.

I did not suggest monkeys were chimps or bonobos,. You criticized Philo for making a comment on monkeys: ‘You then jabber on about monkeys for some reason, no good reason.’

A lot like the pot calling the kettle black, I should think…

You repeatedly raise chimps and bonobos and their dna, blah, blah, blah…but can’t cope with anyone else’s comments.

RE: ‘bragging’, no Yabby, you asked, I answered…and without any bragging involved. You have yet to indicate anything other than pressuring women to abort to save your evolving relatives – convoluted reasoning there.

As I have stated before, I am happy to ‘do good for others’ – that is it’s own reward - and the promise of Heaven is on offer to all…not just me. Go for it, Yabby, don’t sit and whine.

RE: Universal Truth – Again, I repeat TRUTH itself IS UNIVERSAL. If something is true, then it doesn’t matter if you accept it or not…it IS, irrespective of your beliefs or anyone elses.

Reason I suggest you re-read my posts and get to a point where you can see truth as desirable at all…you seem to have difficulty absorbing much at all or don’t see the need for repeating truthfully.

Until then, your previous promise to ‘ignore me’ is fine by me.
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 13 March 2006 10:42:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Meg.

So, what is the universal truth, as you see it, regarding this matter?
Posted by Reason, Monday, 13 March 2006 11:30:51 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
Reason, while 'ignorance is bliss'for you - I suggest that you re-read my posts before your feet disappear permanently into your mouth.

Read carefully...TRUTH is UNIVERSAL...

Do you know what truth means?

Not A truth - EVERY TRUTH...AND truth itself, is universal.

I don't hold the rights to truth, neither do you...and truth does not rely on our belief to remain UNIVERSAL and true.

That you and I are alive and human is true...

that truth applies to others too.

Think it through...truths are everywhere around you...deny them or accept them...truth will out in the end, it is inescapable.
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 13 March 2006 2:01:37 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
Meg, perhaps your church should answer why it selectively insists on natural law, only when it comes to increasing the number of followers. More little Catholics to outbreed the Muslims perhaps? Even more power to the Vatican? Was the old papa worried about demographics when he dreamed up the HV?

The human population has grown from 1.5 billion to 6.5 billion in 100 years, using unnatural means, not natural.

You clearly don’t have much understanding of evolution theory either, for if you did, you would have understood that Philo’s comments were irrelevant to anything claimed by anyone in the field. It just showed his ignorance and it seems yours too now. I can cope with anyone’s comments, but at least
they need some relevance.

Meg, reread your own posts, you brag all the time, without anyone asking you anything in that regard.

So if you are happy to do good for others for its own reward, why do you assume that those who don’t believe in heaven can’t do the same, as you implied? Pure arrogance and ignorance it seems.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 13 March 2006 5:39:08 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 experienced the type of counselling anti-abortionists offer on the day I confirmed my pregnancy. My GP was anti-abortion. I had become concerned about his failure to note the problems I was having in my marriage - his advice was to follow my husband's lead in everything when I complained about the way my husband was treating me. I guess I was very naive then. I never attended my GP when I was bruised - too embarrassed.

After I managed to stop crying, I told my GP that I could not proceed with my pregnancy. He wouldn't listen, just lectured me. Finally after saying he would not perform an abortion he gave me a referral to a doctor who did perform them. Somehow I found this hypocritcal - if he didn't perform abortions then why would he refer me to someone who did?

Anyway, I refered myself to the Bertram Wainer clinic and was subjected to further abuse by a rabble of anti-abortion protesters outside the clinic.

However, one really good thing resulted from this experience; I realized that if I couldn't bear having his children then I really had to get out of my marriage. It took two years of planning but I finally escaped.

I have never regretted having an abortion, leaving my husband or standing up for my reproductive rights.

When I read that Meg1 and Philo claim to offer counselling to pregnant women my blood simply runs cold.

All they have offered on these threads is either abuse or dogma.

Meg1 and Philo you have a choice in how you conduct your lives allow me the same right. Just because you disapprove of me doesn't mean you should have to stoop to rudeness and abuse. I am sure that you have made mistakes in your lives - maybe you were lucky and found the right spouse, good for you! But my life is my responsibility and I have managed very well in spite of or perhaps because of my mistakes. At the very least I am capable of learning and moving on. What about you?
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 7:56:11 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
Meg1 “Read carefully...TRUTH is UNIVERSAL...”

That might be so but

Catholics are but one of the claimants to thee “TRUTH”

Religious and Political extremists of every persuasion claim they are to sole recipients of the truth.

El Qaeda claims to possess the TRUTH so too did David Koresh in Texas in 1993.

The only thing El Qaeda, the Davidians and the RCC have in common is, they all lie. The only difference between the former and the RCC is RCC have been doing it longer and are thus more practiced and slicker than the others.

“That you and I are alive and human is true...”

I am not sure what you consider “alive”, with the restrictions to choice would comply with what I consider to be “alive”. Applying your rules I would suggest merely “existing”.

However, the abortion debate is not about what is and what is not an absolute and universal truth.

It is about an individuals sovereign right of self determination.

In this context

You would deny that right to people who seek abortion because it offends or disagrees with your religion and the beliefs you share with your religion.

I, on the other hand, support the absolute and universal right of individuals to determine, for themselves, how their bodies will be used.

I believe my observation, that we do have sovereignty over our bodies and freewill to determine how our body will be used is an absolute and universal human right.

I would suggest it should be an absolute and universal truth, except just as slavery still exists, so to some religions would deny that sovereignty and peddle their version as a corrupt malevolence on the congregants they are supposed to support.

That the Roman Catholic Church continues to work in the background through a host of fronts to retain religious control and subvert the rights of individuals is a matter of record.

That it has duped you into believing it is right and presumably is recipient of some universal truth is merely a matter of your gullibility.

We are not all so gullible.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 8:40:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like ive always said this should be up to the woman not the government. It is not fair for them to decide for the woman on this very personal issue! Especially coz they are males of all people males wouldnt know what its like to have a child inside them or what its like to give birht to them! A womans body changes dramaticly in the pregnancy!and women change mentally.

Its HER body HER life that is affected not anyone elses! No one shuld judge or condem the women who undergo this procedure its not as if they enjoy it! sometimes it has to be done!

Teenage girls in parts of the world have sometimes died giving birth and undergoing unsafe abortion procedures because of a narrow minded government who makes abortions illegal! if this pill became available then it wuld reduce the problems that these young ladies face and they wont be put under danger!

That is exactly what is going to happen if abortion is criminalised or the ru486 pill isnt approved the women who want an abortion will have one anyway legal or not. Its like anything ie: under age drinking its illegal but people still do it!

For starters where does life begin? No one can judge that.
Doesnt it say in the bible that life begins at the very first breath?
Doesnt that answer the question? well again that is up to the individual.

no one is right on one is wrong. This is a forum and its where you say what you think dont ya?

Im not a murderer philo and meg1 i just believe in personal choice!
Posted by Moni, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 1:22:18 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
Please Meg1, tell us what the truth is.

Others can then post their view of the truth, and you can show us how this is different from the truth.

Or if you don't actually know the truth but have belief in what is true, we can work out how it is different from others, how it may be based on a more coherent set of beliefs, or why it is closer to the univeral truth than other beliefs.

Actually, I invite everyone to show their views.

Philo, what "reality that you observe" makes "any person ...who deliberately terminate the life of an unborn child after conception ... guilty of murder."?

I believe our value is grounded in biology. If we can enjoy our lives, they are valuable. The more we can enjoy them, due to capacities to change environments so that we can enjoy our lives, the more valuable they are.

Those that believe morality is unimportant, or who do not believe biology affects morality (eg possessing a soul gives humans value which is not associated with anatomy) can have just as rational arguments as I, from the basis of their beliefs.

We can debate our base beliefs, but there will be a degree of fruitless argument about how our base beliefs are "just correct".

Atleast then we can agree to disagree, and acknowledge others hold their views from a certain basis, not because they intend to be evil (you can still believe that holding that other view perpetrates evil).

I don't wish to put words in other's mouths, but it seems Meg1 and Philo believe abortion is immoral because human life is sacrosanct. Why?

My suspicion is their base belief is that God (via the church) has decreed the soul is present from conception.

Having limited number of words to reply is getting harder for Meg1 and Philo as their detractors grow, but if they inform of the actual truth, rather than leaving me to rely on my suspicions, debate on the topic may progress somewhat from the name calling it has degenerated into (from all sides).
Posted by wibble, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 5:01:01 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
I don't try to impose my beliefs on others and I expect the same consideration. If others try to browbeat me, it usually seems to be because they regard their beliefs as superior to mine and that gives them the right [and duty] to use any means at their disposal to force me to submit.

I don't believe that an early foetus is the same as a child. I think it's very sad if finding herself pregnant does not always bring joy to a woman [and to her partner]. But I accept the obvious truth this does not invariably happen, for a whole variety of valid reasons. In such a case, I accept that the woman has the right to choose abortion and I don't regard this as murder.

The existence of "God" can neither be proven nor disproven, so none of us are in a position to be dogmatic about this. For those who believe in a loving God and the existence of a soul, well don't you think that he would be smart enough to not penalise souls who have done nothing wrong, just because a fallible human got something wrong?

The Pope is a human being, just like the rest of us and is no more infallible than you or I. You want to believe otherwise, then go for it, but don't expect the rest of us to give this strange notion any credibility.

And for those who quote the Bible and claim that constitutes proof of anything, I would say this. Quoting portions of an unproven document cannot be regarded as proof.

I have friends of many faiths and none. We get on fine because we don't try to push our beliefs down one another's throats.

I am pro-choice on probably all the so-called moral issues. I listen to reasoned arguments on various topics which are not based on unprovable religious dogma. But I don't respond to insults, particularly those related to alleged personality characteristics, assumed by people who don't even know me.

There, I think I've managed to state my position without insulting anyone!
Posted by Rex, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 7:19:49 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
Let me state a few facts about my experiences.
My wife lost her third pregnancy at four months by natural abortion. So I am not unfamiliar with the emotions she experienced with the loss of our child.

As I've previously stated I have given counsell to 4 abused wives: Three remain married and one I suggested she seperate from her husband; there were no children involved from this man. The latest pair I counselled on wife bashing two years ago, had me babysit their son last weekend so they could celebrate her birthday. They have their arguments but he knows if he dare lay a hand on her it is into the lock up. He is a business man and such an event would damage his reputation.

__________________________

What is truth?
When fertile male sperm attaches itself to a healthy female egg in a healthy environment conception takes place.

To pretend this will not take place in the womb as a healthy woman is deception. There are those that prefer to believe a lie. However when they discover it has, they panic with fear and believe such an event is unjust and unfair. So the only known way is to destroy the evidence. They are living in denial.

Conception is not a fantacy it is a fact of life. People 6,000 years ago recognised this so this is why marriage was established to make two persons responsible for children born to that woman. Free love was outlawed as adultery or fornication as men could easily walk away from their family responsibility.

It would seem that this generation feels marriage is a hinderance and woman have children to any man without responsibility. That sex alone is the criteron of the pinacle of a relationship. So one night stands are acceptable. This might be a fact- but it does not represent the absolute of a truth of best social practise.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 8:16:21 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
Philo, you are correct, at conception another organism is created.
So what? They can be created easily, in virtually unlimited amounts of abundance, far more then can ever survive. The problem is not in creating them, but providing the resources to raise them for the next 20 years. Thats the hard part.

Thats exactly why pairbonding (marriage to you) evolved in a number of species. About 90% of birds and 3% of mammals. The prairie vole for instance, is a loyal little fellow, who fusses over his female and has eyes only for her, ignoring other cute female prairie voles, for very good reasons. Fact is that in species where large amounts of resources are required to raise the offspring, pairbonding evolved as a way for that to happen. In humans its much the same, although it goes back much further then 6000 years.

Anthropologists have examined this in detail. Helen Fisher even wrote a book about it all for us non anthropologists, to understand it, called "The Anatomy of Love".

Her view is that women in hunter gatherer societies had a much higher profile, their downfall came with the advent of the plow.
Plows needed alot more strength to operate, at that point women became mere chattels for baby making, as is shown back to the days of Mesopotania.

What has changed now is that after all this time, women now don't need men anymore to bring home the resources to raise the offspring.
They can make a quid on their own and raise offspring as well if required. So they need be chattels no longer, but can choose partnerships if they wish.

But that evolutionary drive to pairponding is still there, so it still happens and will go on happening. Its just not an impertive
anymore, when it comes to raising a family, as it used to be.

Get used to it, we are just another species of nature, in the scheme of things.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 9:51:37 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
The New Christian testaments are quoting "Marriage" as an extension of your sexuality.

Basically if you like having sex, and you like having sex with one particular person, then you get married.

So I guess when you stop liking sex with that one paticular person, you get a divorce.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 10:29:20 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
Well said Rex!

Philo, I appreciate you sharing a troubling personal anecdote; it seems to be in the spirit of empathy that we all find abortion a troubling topic (for various reasons).

I commend your work helping troubled marriages- and hope these situations turned out well (see, we can all have good intentions even with vastly different world-views. I hope the referenced business man also dares not lay a hand on his wife because he loves her)

In argument, one should give benefit of the doubt to one's opponent about underlying assumptions behind a point.

You have shown enough rational debate that I'm sure you don't literally believe (sane) people do not believe in conception (at least from us aware of a western, scientific paradigm, who therefore understand conception as a physiological process).

My best interpretation of your argument is therefore either that there are those who do not believe in conception as a significant event for the moral treatment of an organism, or a significant event for the social recognition of an entity (hence your reference to people 6000 years ago recognising conception, though they would not know the microscopic processes of conception and early pregnancy).

I apologise if this was not your point; please let us know what was. If this was your point, I would ask why do you consider conception an important event for moral status, or why is it important for social status, and what does that mean for abortion?

Historically, many different child rearing institutions have flourished in different cultures. The only (roughly) universal family unit identified by anthropologists is the mother-child unit, as family systems are too diverse to make any other rule about "traditional" families. Monogamy and polygamy are both well represented in terms of marriage systems.

I interpret your last paragraph as generalised social commentary (with a lament about morality) rather than debatable on-topic argument, and we should all have scope to espouse our beliefs with general discussion. If you wish to flesh out these points into debatable (on topic) arguments, I'm sure there are posters who will discuss their merits/flaws.
Posted by wibble, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:20:03 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
Well written posts wibble and Rex.

Philo, your remarks "It would seem that this generation feels marriage is a hinderance and woman have children to any man without responsibility" is a gross sweeping generalisation that I presume comes without any support. I am constantly surrounded by men and women (from the current generation) who do not feel that way at all. I really do not understand on what basis you have arrived at this conclusion, but I find it sad that you have taken a small sample size and generalised it to the population (current generation) as a whole.
Posted by Coraliz, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 6:15:08 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
wibble,
I find the fervor that some feel towards their right to abortion and their celebration that they have another weapon [RU486] to kill their newly conceived babies indicates a social attitude toward human life as not more than organic and self serving. That having a social conscience is irrelavent in educating responsible behaviour regarding their sexuality. That abortion can happen casually without conscience as if it is just a boil in the womb that needs to be removed.

Abortion in any form, natural, surgical or chemical is intrusive and abusive to the health of a woman. In most cases where both are healthy abortion is more damaging than allowing a full term pregnancy.

For these abortionists, in their view, if a woman chooses to have children she is not more than sexually abused by her husband and his breeding stock. In societies where polygamy is normalised this attitude might prevail as women are considered as lesser than man. In some polygamist societies the beating of wives is sanctioned by their culture. But from the women I know who choose to have children they are delighted in the idea of motherhood, and have loving relationships from their husbands.

The current lefty trend in society is against marriage, committed relationships and a social responsibility to family. Hense the rise in STD, cervical cancer, AIDS etc are symptoms of an immoral society. That we are supposed to believe is an evolutionary trend. However all this has happened before in societies to its destruction [see Africa].
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 6:36:50 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
Philo, the problems of Africa have always been many. Its been a basket case since we've known it, no sudden destruction. The reasons would not fit into 350 words.

You seem to be taking a Fred Nile approach to the world. You see your opinion as the universal truth and think all should live by it.

But that is extremely intolerant. Besides, you have no evidence to claim that you know the universal truth. So the rights of others to see lives differently, have different opinions etc, are as valid as yours.

One of the good things about RU 486, is that many women won't have to put up with the abuse from demonstrators outside abortion clinics.
In my experience women don't take abortion lightly. To then have these Christian Taliban abuse women who already have enough problems to deal with, is totally disgusting and totally uncaring.

Yup, plenty of young people want to find a partner, get married and have kids. The real problems they have are not even being addressed.
When a house in Sydney costs half a million $, how will they ever pay for it on one wage for instance? Those are the real problems that today's couples are facing.

Philo, today we understand that small changes in brain chemisty at about 6 weeks gestation, affects how human brains develop. All brains start as female, testosterone in miniscule amounts at this point can change sexual inclination etc. We can create gay rats in laboratories, if we wish. Lets say things had been different in your gestation and childhood and you grew up impulsively attracted to men and not women. Your life might have turned out quite different to what it has.

My point is, have your opinions as to how you should live, but also respect the rights of those who through often no fault of their own, have chosen a different lifestyle to yours.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 10:17:13 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
Philo, I appreciate your dismay that others promote a practice you find abhorrent. Being vegan, imagine my horror if others were eating people; this must be something like the feelings you have to fight and still try to debate rationally with the people who condone abortion.

Pro-abortionists often feel anti-abortionists show fervor defending foetal lives (unthinking cells) over the rights of thinking, feeling, women(hence Yabby's "Christian Taliban").

Surely pro-abortionists are self serving only in the same way anti-abortionists are, spreading ideals they believe are beneficial at the expense of others they feel cause harm?

It may be unfair of me, but it seems from your point about pro-abortionists seeing human life as "not more than organic" (implying it is more than organic, though I haven't grasped your full views on that score), that your argument about abortion safety is an attempt at rhetoric, rather than an argument you believe holds moral weight against abortion.

I am dubious that abortion is more dangerous than child birth (though a contested topic), but find it difficult to believe you accept abortion if done completely safely? (with no health risk to the mother, would you consider infanticide an acceptable alternative?)

I agree polygyny does'nt seem to help women, though some would disagree. I mentioned polygamy as a counterpoint to your views of marriage (and their degree of universality) and the argument I believe you implied, that abortion correlates to social decay (with pregnancy outside of "your" traditional marriage) and is motivated by the same evils causing that social decay. Please correct me if I was drawing too long a bow.

If a broad political position could be ascribed to a continent (dubious) my "generalised social commentary" on Africa would be it displays the "righty" trends; law of the jungle rule, religious dogma (particularly re: contraception)suppressing responsible policy, economic exploitation... leading to STD, AIDS etc.

Again I suspect your generalised commentary doesn't entirely reflect your opposition to abortion. If (hypothetical) social benefits arise from abortion, would you support abortion?

I'm trying not to over-read your arguments; perhaps you could explain your main objection to abortion?
Posted by wibble, Thursday, 16 March 2006 12:36:20 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
Philo you r last post is just an expression of judgemental hissing fits about people who’s view you disagree with, followed by a diatribe and moaning on about a variety of social problems relating to sexual practices but not related to abortion nor a woman’s right to choose how her body will be used.

It is inappropriate and immature to suggest, because of incidences of abuse which apply to some women it is reason to restrict the rights of all women. That is like saying “because some vehicle drivers drive when drunk we should ban all people from driving”. Such logic as yours would advocate no woman should be allowed to marry because her husband might be abusive.

As for analogies to polygamy, you must have fallen out of your tree and landed badly, head first, if you think there is any merit in such fatuous comments.

“symptoms of an immoral society” So what are your signs of a “moral” society,

Stoning to death or imprisonment of adulterers?
Burning and torture of anyone who questions the authority of the Church, State or social order?
Continue to let the priests, whose morality is sacrosanct, infallible and unable to be questioned, have first pick of the alter boys?

Keep posting Yabby, I express too infrequently how I do agree with your view.

Wibble social values and issues regarding polygamy have nothing to do with the abortion or a woman’s right to choose.

As for "polygamy". It is just a straw man topic of Philo's. Maybe it was introduced to ensure societies were capable of repopulating themselves after the menfolk had been decimated in tribal war.
I don’t really know, I am just guessing, but so too Philo is “guessing” if he thinks it has anything to do with a woman’s right of choice to abort or not.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 16 March 2006 8:18:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,
I agree "social values and issues regarding polygamy have nothing to do with the abortion or a woman’s right to choose."

I was trying to counter Philo's assertions about the actual value particular social conventions (eg marriage, and raising children in a husband/wife/children family unit) he values, and show his valued conventions are not universal in any historical context. The only reason I was doing this was because Philo seemed to base some of his argument against abortion on a generalisation about abortion causing, or being caused by the same things that cause, a deterioration in the social conventions he values.

I agree that mentioning (deteriorating) social conventions such as marriage is usually a straw man tactic from anti-abortionists, as the true reason they are against abortion is because they are are against the killing of a foetus.

But in that context, I take your argument as a warning that talking about such red herring issues leaves us in danger of going dangerously off topic when discussing abortion, and I thank you for reminding pro-abortionists that the real strength of our argument is that it is pro-choice.

I wish anti-abortionists could be as up front about their real issue with abortion...
Posted by wibble, Thursday, 16 March 2006 4:22:58 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
Col, Scout and Wibble, thanks for your posts on here, I always enjoy them. So keep posting!

Its people like us, who think beyond the narrow, religious dogma interpretation of the world, who questioned, who challenged, who made a difference to bring about change. If the Catholic Church still had its way, even divorce would be seen as not acceptable
and not allowed.

I'm always amused when Philo, Martin and others, think that the world collapsed because their definition of morality was not being
enforced. What really affected societies in the past was in fact
diseases! The plague, smallpox etc, were the real culprits which killed millions and emptied cities. All the prayer in the world did not change things, but modern science made a difference.

Anyhow, thanks for your contributions, they are appreciated.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 16 March 2006 9:30:27 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
Yabby, examine your posts and take out the irrelevant evolution-theorizing, anti-Catholic-vitriol, foot-stamping, etc. you’d have nothing left…so much for relevance.

Scout, like many abused women, you protected your abuser…hiding your bruises. Your ‘problem’ was your relationship, not your doctor or baby. Denial prevents you ‘moving on’…

Despite your own attacks, I have neither abused you, nor preached dogma...neither has Philo.

I’ve stated my case and answered the vitriol hurled about on these threads like grenades.

Col, like Reason, you don’t read with comprehension…your prattle is irrelevant to the topic…and my comments...try re-reading.

You’ve argued for anarchy. Every individual must consider other’s needs also, not just self-gratification.

Gullible, greedy, gratuitous? Whatever the label, also try growing up…

Moni, RU486 will put abortion back home ‘out-of-sight-out-of-mind’…with no supervision. Lethal for the unborn and mothers will die too.

Wibble read previous posts – there are MANY TRUTHS. Judging from evidence on these threads, ‘suspicions’ that anti-lifers are obtuse, would be justified.

Rex, insults for the Pope, his followers, the unborn, other’s beliefs, etc. and then assumptions of other’s beliefs while pushing your agenda! Who’s forcing beliefs?

Effectively stated Philo...

Yabby your deceptiveness knows no bounds. Babies aren’t ‘created easily, in virtually unlimited amounts of abundance…’

You lack knowledge of human biology. Fertility is over days, periodically…NOT ‘unlimited amounts of abundance’.

I’m happy NOT to plow the fields…I don’t regard it’s loss as a ‘blow’.

I’ve yet to see women being ‘abused’ in front of abortion clinics…stick to the truth. They may be praying or offering brochures or help, but abuse, NO!

RE: Gay rats - hormones (contraceptive pills) are documented to produce such results in the next generation. Solution - Natural Methods.

Look in any schoolroom Coraliz, see how many live within stable ‘family’ groups, married parents and children…statistics back Philo’s comments.

Col and wibble, try killing of human beings as the issue. Col continually chooses which red herrings to ignore and which to include. As long as it’s his red herring, it’s ok…take out all the vitriol towards Catholics and Col’s posts don’t exist.
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 16 March 2006 10:42:05 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
Meg1,
as you suggested I re-read your previous posts. Most of your arguments seem to be rebuttals, but with a limited word count and more people attacking your position than supporting it, that is fair enough. If I have missed an argument that is central to your case, I probably misread it as rebuttal, and I apologise. Please add any points I have missed.

These were points I could interpret as making a case against abortion, though I’m not sure you were attempting to. I think these are countering other arguments, or showing your views of morality, in a broader context.

*“Where’s the baby’s (2ndindividual's) decision?”-8 March

*”‘Criminalising pregnancy is a very very dangerous path to go down’ – I agree Col, which is why abortion is wrong, it does just that”-6 March

*”…‘PLENTY’ of Australian women DON”T die in childbirth Col, that's fallacy and killing viable babies of at-risk mothers is counter-productive”-8 March

*”RE: Truth does not require belief. If it is truth then it will be proven…at some stage”-10 March

*”However, there’s nothing natural about abortion…”-13 March

These are the points that seem central to your anti-abortion argument-

*”…only the Creator should decide when your time has come”-4 March

*”Abortion kills another human being”-5 March

*”…try killing of human beings as the issue”-16 March

*” If there's no certainty in deciding that human life DOESN'T begin at conception, who're you to decide against giving the benefit of the doubt to the unborn...you're deciding on a living human, whatever stage of life it's at, there's no doubt on that score...Even if life is held in suspension, it remains until it's extinguished, however, it cannot be commenced by injecting life-sustaining drugs or anything else, including genetic material into a human corpse at any stage of the life span...if life isn't there, it won't commence or develop, except from conception”-6 March

*”As for ‘a piece of steel’ being a ‘potential car’…apart from being inanimate, it can potentially be many things. A conceived human life remains a human life with potential…get the difference?”-12 March

(continued)
Posted by wibble, Friday, 17 March 2006 2:03:26 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
Meg1: Philo made a grand generalization in saying:
"It would seem that this generation feels marriage is a hinderance and woman have children to any man without responsibility. That sex alone is the criteron of the pinacle of a relationship." Your statement to me that Philo was correct is just as grand and I would like to understand where the logic of your remark came from.
Your suggestion "Look in any schoolroom Coraliz, see how many live within stable ‘family’ groups, married parents and children…statistics back Philo’s comments" will not give me any statistics to support Philo's sweeping aspersion on this generation.
Posted by Coraliz, Friday, 17 March 2006 7:24:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1

You claim to never have abused me.

1. You stated that I needed a dictionary for the word 'dogma'

What a pathetic little swipe. If I ever did need a dictionary, with the likes of you, Philo and LAB - I have had a surfeit of dogma.

2. Judging me ie 'my problem is.....' need to 'move on' is personal abuse, Meg1.

For a start I did move on - I no longer live with my spouse - despite the fear and abuse I managed to escape completely - he has no idea where I am. Something I would not have been able to achieve if I had gone through with my pregnancy.

On the subject of women who have abortions being called murderers.

1. We go on to become loving mothers and partners.
2. We work, contribute to society.
3. We are not a threat to society as we care enough about ourselves and children not to bring children into dangerous and inappropriate situations.

Again, Meg1 I say to you - you do not have to have abortions, no one is forcing you to. All I ask is that my decisions about my life be respected. You have not done so, you have hoisted yourself above all others and presumed to judge.

Are you so perfect, so free of sin that you have the right to judge others?
Posted by Scout, Friday, 17 March 2006 7:30:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, your Catholic Church accepts evolution theory, they just don't apply it to their dogma. The laws of nature are my god, ignore them at your peril.

Lets look at what happenend in Rwanda, where Catholic pro life dogma prevailed and the Catholic pro life commandos used to raid the pharmacies and destroy the condoms. The population went up and up,
land, people and the environment got out of balance, the system stressed to the limits. Woooosh - genocide by the hundreds of thousands happened. Catholics killing Catholics. But, you ignore nature at your peril, you think you've got your ticket to heaven, so what do you care or even understand about these things.

Meg, organsims are created very easily, in massive overabundance, in just about all species. Again you ignore natures laws. The limits are always in resources to raise the offspring, not in creating organisms. Then you have the human problem. We've learnt how to create vaccines and antibiotics etc, so an unnatural situation.
They are great if used with intelligence, but combined with cheap food from cheap oil, they have created a human population explosion in the last 100 years. If you keep encouraging people to breed like rabbits, like the pro life people in Rwanda, don't be amazed when genocide happens as the system collapses. Thats my very point, Catholic dogma is responsible for much misery and sadness around the planet, when much of it could be avoided with just a little intelligence.

What are you doing in front of abortion clinics Meg? Are you out there harrassing those poor women too?

Clearly your natural methods of birth control have been a dismal failure in Catholic Rwanda Meg.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 17 March 2006 7:35:36 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
Wibble – you are correct, I was warning, not criticising. Thank you for putting the correct interpretation on my post.

Yabby – until around 100 years ago people were ruled by social order and held in check by their class status. The vast majority of us have weathered well in the revolution which has ensued through the 20th Century to break that offensive system.

Unfortunately the organised religions, who depended upon the maintenance of the status-quo and implied authority of the clergy have been the losers.
Hence, they resent that individuals can exercise freewill without first requesting permission (which was often denied).

Some small minds still cling to the old order, where all direction is derived from the pulpit.

We should pity them, they have not adjusted well. They cling vainly to what was. Incapable of exercising reasoned decision making and needing a life pre-ordained and regulated, where they are relieved of the responsibility to take or make decisions.

Scout. You have brought into this debate some important points, the things which can only be expressed from the perspective of personal experience.

You have also identified another important issue.
If it were up to the Catholic Church, You would still be married to the abusive brute who you sought escape from.

A “double-wammie”.

I too am divorced, although I have a good relationship with the mother of my children and shared an enjoyable dinner recently, at my younger daughter’s 21st birthday, each with our respective new partners.

Rex, based on his posts here and the insight he has given to his own thought processes; I would suggest, he and I share a lot of common values beyond this debate.

Philo, I could regale you of my counselling experiences too.
To summarise them
If the counsellor preaches “This is not what you must / must not do” they will achieve nothing.
If the counsellor asks “Well what are you going to do about it” and advises on consequences, only then do they stand a chance of making a difference.

Meg1 – based on your last post, you have “lost it”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 17 March 2006 8:33:50 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've been off line for a few days so have not been able to post online as my security settings were set too high.
_________________

You would think that intelligent beings as we purport to be; by now could have put responsible practises in place to avoid pregnancy in the first place if we did not want a pregnancy. No it would appear we prefer to have a hand in the death of our potential children.

It is not Rawanda that are aborting their young and need RU486 to do so; It is Australians! It is obvious that many Australians do not possess the intelligence we imagine above Rawandians to avoid a pregnancy. Rawandians may not use condoms but it would appear that Australians do not either. It would appear we prefer to kill our children in the womb while Rawandians allow the ravages of poverty and disease to kill their children. This does not make us superior.

In fact it is our affluence and drugs that would place us in a better position to raise children if poverty is the criterion to abort.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 17 March 2006 8:37:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, look at treatment costs and deaths from AIDS and other STDs…there’s your modern plaque.

RE: scientific cures,check the faith of the scientists…most were devout Catholics. People pray for cures, if science delivers them, it’s no less a cure, nor is it unsupported by prayer.

Coraliz, take a look in any classroom and you’ll see the statistics in reality.

Interesting that you’re uncomfortable with this ‘generalization’ while avidly supporting those from anti-life zealots, despite their irrelevance and inaccuracy.

Scroll through the anti-lifer’s posts, there are sufficient statements to poll, confirming issues raised in Philo’s post…marriage statistics and ‘marriage-is-only-a-piece-of-paper’ claims by ‘feminists’ provide additional confirmation.

Scout, you’re very ‘sensitive’ to other’s responses to your abuse, a clear sign you’ve not ‘moved on’ from your abortion, even if you have from your marriage.

You could’ve severed all contact if you had adopted your babe out also. You continually raise your own situation, expect response as it’s not healthy to simply tell you what you want to hear regardless of the truth.

Regarding women who have aborted…I assume you refer to yourself as fulfilling all of those roles, loving mother, partner, etc…? Those statistics are unrepresentative of the general population.

RE: No 3, the unborn would see you as a real and specific threat, with proven cause.

RE: ‘hoisting me above all others’, I make no claim to do any more than speak the truth as I understand it and can prove it, where possible.

Yabby, I have free will and I don’t blindly follow the theories of evolution, whoever allows them. The Catholic Church has allowed that even if the theory of evolution had basis in fact, at some point of the evolutionary chain, the being was ensouled…making a very different being. I would concur with that statement but it still does not alter my skepticism on evolution.

No Yabby, I haven’t been to abortion clinics, but you’ve given me incentive to do so in order to disprove your diatribe…I’m still waiting for any indication that you want to do more than kill the babies to save your evolving rellies.
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 17 March 2006 9:59:51 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
Meg1

Thought I'd just point out the bleeding obvious.

I recounted my experience because it is entirely relevant to the topic. It is a valid POV. If I was unable to discuss it - that would be evidence that I had been unable to 'move on.'

I provided Government links which support my claims that the majority of women who have abortions go on to live as good mothers, partners and make contributions to society.

You seem to think you have a monopoly on truth. What you do have a monopoly on is an overflated idea of your superiority to others. You continue to judge - yet you are no position to do so.

Again I will say - you are free to determine your fertility as you choose, it is only democratic that you acknowledge that others are free to determine what is right for them. You fail to do this.

Furthermore, you stated that you had not abused me - yet when I point out that you had, you then proceed to call me sensitive.

More twists than a cut snake, Meg1. I guess you would call black white if it suited your anti democratic purpose.

BTW I have never abused anti-abortionists, merely queried their claims that they are pro-life when the only life they are concerned with are foetuses and not concerned with living breathing beings. Having a different perspective to you does not constitute insult.

You have proven your contempt for women with the scathing commentary about my decisions with my life. If you were as helpful and had truly assisted victims of domestic violence as you claim, I would've expected more enlightened posts rather than the diatribe you inflict on those how hold a different point of view.

In short - I simply don't believe you have anyone's best interest at heart due to the nature of your posts to OLO. These posts are simply a vehicle to pursue your agenda without any consideration to the feeling of others.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 17 March 2006 10:36:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1,
What you see when you look in a classroom is obviously what you want to see, and is not what I see.

I am uncomfortable with any sweeping generalisation Meg1, and you have certainly made yet another one by saying "Interesting that you’re uncomfortable with this ‘generalization’ while avidly supporting those from anti-life zealots, despite their irrelevance and inaccuracy". I don't support anyone who is anti-life for starters, as I am pro-life as are many whose posts I have agreed with. You choose to call them anti-life because they support (as I do) a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy provided she is making an informed choice and feels there is no alternatives available that she can proceed with given the personal factors she is considering. That you choose to call us/them anti-life is your choice, but I do not have to agree with it or accept the label given so frequently by you. If I support someones right to be a Catholic (and I do) does that make me a Catholic? If you support my right not to be a Catholic, does that then make you not a Catholic?

If you were having a rational debate you would merely refer to other posters as 'others' not anti-lifers.

Your comment
"Scroll through the anti-lifer’s posts, there are sufficient statements to poll, confirming issues raised in Philo’s post…marriage statistics and ‘marriage-is-only-a-piece-of-paper’ claims by ‘feminists’ provide additional confirmation" is beyond what I would call logical and coherent and again does nothing to confirm Philo's grand generalisation. The posters on onlineopinion would form a biased sample in anycase :) and data would be purely anecdotal.
Posted by Coraliz, Friday, 17 March 2006 9:54:28 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
Philo, the reality is that women in the third world have a huge unmet need for
family planning, contraception and abortion. The Catholic Church does what it can to stop them. So they die by the hundreds of thousands each year, when they turn to illegal means in desperation. The Church clearly does not
care for the living and breathing.

Meg, one of Australia’s most eminent scientists has stated that he thinks that the Catholic Church is responsible for more deaths then Hitler, with its contraception policy.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/parting-shot-to-pope-get-real-on-aids/2005/12/03/1133422148025.html

In the real world, that is exactly what is happening. When they get rid of condoms, the aids rate rises.

Meg, hundreds of millions prayed for the last pope, the old fella still fell off the proverbial perch. So much for the power of prayer. But we are well aware of
the placebo factor and peoples selective memories.

You don’t understand evolution theory, so of course you don’t follow it.
You’ve never bothered to educate yourself on the subject. We are well aware
that the less educated people are in general, the more superstitious and religious they are. The least religious are biologists, who understand biology and evolution theory as part of that.

Yup the Church these days sticks to saving souls. Its good business for them, they never have to actually prove what they claim. If a lot of other businesses tried that, they would be locked up.

“I’ve yet to see women being ‘abused’ in front of abortion clinics…stick to the truth. They may be praying or offering brochures or help, but abuse, NO!” --- “ No Yabby, I haven't been to abortion clinics,”

Clearly these two statements of yours contradict each other Meg, but that is not unusual from you.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 18 March 2006 12:21:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, have been away on holidays… aaah the beach!

So, Meg.
I accept that there is ultimately only one truth. I have never contested this. My point was that people each have a point of view of what the truth is. Let me outline a scenario, by way of example:

5 people witness a traffic accident. They are interviewed and each give 5 versions, generally the same but all quite different in detail, as to what happened. Each version will impact on what the follow-up action to be taken is in court or elsewhere. So, who is telling the truth? How does one identify what is the actual truth as opposed to what is only a persons perception?

Do you see where I am coming from? I am not trying to insult or argue with you. I am trying to ascertain your position on certain truths, so that we can have a discussion. Why do you continue to treat me as an adversary? I am not attempting to be obtuse or adversarial in any way.

Now, as you suggest the universal truth exists on this matter, can you please provide me with your perspectives on the following, with regard to the truths associated with them (including your reasons for your observations):

* The specific point at which a human being begins to exist.

* That the choice made to abort by an individual is wrong.

* That abortion is simply wrong.

And, even though the questions are slightly off topic, can you answer the following also.

* Evidence of the existence of a God.

* The correct religion to believe in.

I will respond with my reasoning also, if you are willing to discuss these issues.
Posted by Reason, Saturday, 18 March 2006 2:14:53 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
Reason,
Can I attempt to answer the second section off Topic.

* Evidence of the existence of a God.
God is not a physical being in some remote section of space - God is Spirit revealed in character, attitudes, revealed wisdom, and his creative actions. These aspects are expressed in persons who seek God in this way. For instance all life has principles that are manifest for a best purpose and practise. Living within the character and boundaries of that purpose gives the greatest blessing: violation of those principles causes deterioration and destruction (eg to health and environment).

* The correct religion to believe in.
It is not a matter of following a demonination tag called a "religion". It is a matter of living conscious of the manifest character of idealism found in God (for Christians the example of Jesus Christ) and adhering to the revelation he demonstrated. It is a consciousness of the relationship we should keep with the Spirit who created it all.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 18 March 2006 9:17:11 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
Philo, given your previous comments in this thread, I hesitate to become involved in discussion with you. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt – that you have accepted some burden of error in those comments and feel remorse for the ill-worded statements – and on that basis, am willing to have a civilised and open-minded discussion

So, lets dialogue.

As to the existence of God:
- I agree that God is not one to be located physically.
- Can you explain the meaning of a Spirit revealed in character and attitude?
- I understand the concept of creative action and accept that with a belief in ‘The Creation’, this is seen.
- However, I am stuck on the revealed wisdom. I take it you refer to the wisdom imparted by God to humanity. Can you explain the revelation of this wisdom? How, who was involved and the veracity of the claims by these people?

You state that all life has principles leading to a best purpose and practise. I assume this comes from the revealed wisdom, so will leave this until we cover that. I won’t go into questions regarding the living within as this also relies upon the revealed wisdom.

As to the correct religion:
If I am to summarise – it is not following any particular dogma (of any of the various religions) but to live according to the principals and codes accorded to the revealed wisdom of God. Further that it is important to be aware of and honour the relationship between us (the creation) and our God (the creator).

Please accept that I do not ask these questions to be difficult or at any time derogatory. I was raised Christian and believe I have a good understanding of Christianity (and even admire some of it).

I simply wish to delve into certain aspects of belief and faith that are relevant to the issues in this thread and broaden my views to better place my moral and ethical compass.
Posted by Reason, Saturday, 18 March 2006 11:30:42 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
Philo “God is Spirit revealed in character, attitudes, revealed wisdom, and his creative actions. These aspects are expressed in persons who seek God in this way.”

“It is a matter of living conscious of the manifest character of idealism found in God”

I would not disagree with those statements.

What you are saying is we all have God within us. Since we all have varying degrees of “character”, “attitude”, assuming we have access to “revealed wisdom” (like Reason, I have a bit of an issue with definition here) and are all capable of “creative action”.

Accepting a direct involvement of God within each of us.

So why are Catholics intent on making the rest of us bend to their religious edicts and dogma?

Why can’t Catholics accept that, since we all possess a direct relationship with God, the role of Church is, at best, superficial and when not at best, a lot more corrupting and malevolent with a hierarchy of priest pretending to be the interlocutors between our individual “character”, “attitudes” “wisdom” and “creative actions” and the “Spirit of God”, which you have described as being within each of us?

None of that has anything to do with denying women the right to exercise the freewill in respect to their own body, which God also gave them.

“Organised religions” were social structures designed to maintain order within society. The difference between when the Roman Catholic Church was founded and today is the that “society” has changed.

No longer does the Pope hold sway over Kings.

Kings no longer exist in the manner they existed 300 years ago.

The social revolution has not altered the nature of God but it has altered, absolutely the role and authority of Kings and with them, the role of Organised Religions.

Religious denominations, Roman Catholic in particular, seek to cling to the authority they possessed pre the social revolution, nowadays inappropriate in this post revolutionary age.

As the saying goes “Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”,
All that is missing is are pictures of different Popes to illustrate that statement.


Reason – well reasoned.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 19 March 2006 10:44:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How absolutely weird it is to see people spouting gibberish about God in a debate over abortion. I always thought that was an American thing. The cognitive dissonace of the true believer is so strong that they fail to see they have sucessfully reduced the supreme being to nothing more than a kid with an ant farm. What place does a religious dogma have in the politics of a democracy? Should decisions that have the ability to impact greatly on the lives of individuals be decided on circular reasoning and religious dogma? Sadly, a lot of people out there think so, and why are we usually so careful to examine things we are told with a healthy dose of skepticism, but when put to us in a religious contex will blindly believe it without question? If the government is to consult anyone on the issue besides the people who elected them, it should be the medical profession, not the church and it's followers. Religion isn't morality and even the government doesn't try to make it's rewards posthumous.
Posted by Gitmo Guy, Sunday, 19 March 2006 12:34:10 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
Reason,
Question: Can you explain the meaning of a Spirit revealed in character and attitude?

Jesus taught the kingdom of God (where God dwells) is within the passions, emotions and intellect of man. Jesus, "Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength"; this identifies our disposition toward the values of perfect Character. Jesus also taught only few who find it. Meaning the general attitudes and character of most persons do not reflect the true nature and purity of God. God is understood in the absolutes of purity, that is why we must practise confession, repentance and forgiveness. We constantly violate boundaries of good attitude and behaviour in relationships. God is revealed in good and pure relationships it's this we focus upon in true worship. Those that believe God's some distant being in the sky fail to relate to and express the Character of God. Most character in man is at enmity with God, and one cannot say that person reflects the spirit of God.

Question: Can you explain the revelation of this wisdom? How, who was involved and the veracity of the claims by these people?

Wisdom is the application of principles found to work for the blessing and best enjoyment of life. They're natural in creation - created by the God of all wisdom. Our attitudes and behaviour is demonstrated by our lives and reveals who we are. Wisdom comes from recognising how God designed Creation to best function. Violation of the best principles known to man leads to greater sickness injury and death. Hence wars are fought because of greed or injustice. Avoidance of greed, lust, dominance and selfishness is drawing closer to God

Example: indulgence in anal sex increases the possibility of infection and tissue damage not normally found in vaginal sex with one exclusive partner. Those that think they know better have cross contamination statistics of such behaviour to prove it. AIDS and other STD's indicate it is an abnormal practise. However the long exposure to such diseases because of promiscuous practises has spread these diseases across innocent people
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 19 March 2006 1:51:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo, promiscuous sexual behaviour may not be socially desirable but it certainly is not abnormal. Its estimated by the doctors that invented the heel test that 1 in 8 children are not the offspring of the man listed on the birth certificate.

Why would nature allow such perfidous behaviour to evolve. Well not all male female combinations will produce healthy children. Some blokes throw wrong 'uns. Then of course there is the theory that women may be promiscuous to increase the chance of getting pregnant. Some sperm are there to fertilise and "soldier" sperm kill off a competitors sperm.

Then of course if you listen to vets talking about good conformance in livestock you soon realise that good conformance extends to all mammals including humans and not all humans are prize specimens and thus probably less fertile.
Posted by billie, Sunday, 19 March 2006 2:49:05 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 away for week. No time now but will come back to this if anyone is interested on my return.

Peace...
Posted by Reason, Sunday, 19 March 2006 6:01:09 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
Just because we can do anything we choose is not a valid reason to commit actions. We all have the capacity to kill another person. Just because some do - does not make it valid behaviour. A civilised society outlaws behaviours that breed disease, fosters murder, and self destruction.

We have the capacity to heal many diseases, but that in many cases is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than the security fense at the top. Especially in cases where we have a choice that leads to disease or ultimately death.

Abortion is one of those actions where choices should have been made before consequences to terminate a life was seen as an appropiate action. Self gratification was seen as the pinacle of the decision at the time, rather than the bigger picture that it would result in an unwanted pregnancy. Poor decisions have poor outcomes. That is why the sacrifice of infant children to Marduk in ancient times was so abhorrent.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 19 March 2006 9:58:00 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
"We all have the capacity to kill another person."

Philo, that is where I disagree with you. This idea that we are all born killers, who have to learn not to kill others is nonsense. Its the other way round. Just about all social species evolved not to kill their own, for obvious reasons, it makes good evolutionary sense.

Yes some people are born with psychopathic tendencies, but they are few and far between. Yes some people can get so emotionally engulfed that they lose control of their ability to reason and in an act of passion, kill somebody. (more people die from acts of passion then from some killer who intrudes etc)

Yes we can learn to become killers, just as we can learn to become Catholics. That does not mean that we are born with those tendencies.

Morality is grounded in biology. Just look at the behaviour of various primate species between each other. Its not much different to our own. There are good evolutionary reasons for all this. The very notion that we are all born savages and have to learn morality, is a flawed one, promoted by the Church to justify its existence.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 March 2006 10:51:21 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
Philo “Just because we can do anything we choose is not a valid reason to commit actions.”

No but just because someone is pregnant does not give you the right to undermine their right of self determination and deny them choice.

As for Fences at the tops of cliffs… the world is not a safe place, pretending you can prevent all the negative thins which might happen will only result in people living half lives, surrounded in cotton wall (or fences) and achieving nothing for themselves. You will still need ambulances and people will still climb over fences.

As for killing another person. That is true, however, abortion is not murder because of the nature and status of an embryo / foetus, which has not achieved a state of individuality. It is not a person in the “individual sense”. It is an extension of the woman in whose body it is developing and thus subject to her decision and right to decide whether to abort or not.

I see no one from the pro-choice side of the debate arguing that having an abortion is necessarily the right thing.
What I see from the pro-choice posts is a common respect for other peoples right to make choices for themselves, regardless that they might be poor decision resulting in poor outcomes.

The “worst outcome” is when people are denied the right to make decisions and treated like cognitive incompetents to suit the dogmatic edicts of someone else.

Yabby disagree with morality being grounded in biology.

Animals are without morals because they cannot make reasoned choices. Animals are driven by biology along a single path, where the sole purpose of sex is to procreate, just like the Catholic Church demands.

RCC would deny us our individuality and exercise of freewill because it is not good for the Church, it challenges their power.

That is why the RCC are anti-abortion, because it is an area in which the individual woman can be seen to make a choice over her own body, instead of following the edicts of a religious tyranny.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 20 March 2006 12:32:34 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
(overdue follow up from previous post)

Meg1, from your arguments (see my previous post), I would conclude that you are anti-abortion because-

1)You believe in God and God's morality
2)You believe God tells us that killing humans is wrong
3)You believe foetuses (and zygotes, embryos etc) are human, and therefore killing them via abortion is wrong.

Does this accurately sum up your argument against abortion?

With her/his post on Saturday, 18 March, Reason has taken up the challenge to this basis of an anti-abortion debate.

Philo has responded that
"Wisdom comes from recognising how God designed Creation to best function. Violation of the best principles known to man leads to greater sickness injury and death."

This turns the debate from abortion being a violation of an absolute rule handed down from above, to abortion being wrong due to its consequences (for example, if it leads to greater sickness/injury/death).

I'm not sure Philo(or other anti-abortionists) would want to adopt a consequentialist argument to abortion (but can tell me otherwise), but if so, Philo may be in trouble with examples such as this-

"indulgence in anal sex increases the possibility of infection and tissue damage not normally found in vaginal sex with one exclusive partner."

If greater sickness/injury/death is the criteria to make an act wrong, then unprotected sex is always wrong compared to protected sex.

Furthermore, this argument accepts that abortion may then be right if the social consequences result in less injury/sickness/death than the death of the foetus and any negative social consequences of abortion.

How right/wrong abortion is then becomes a somewhat empyrical matter. I am happy to argue this, but I'm not sure Philo should be.

For example, suppose as a matter of empyrical fact we determine that the earth can only sustain its current population, yet a billion babies are due, and if they are all born, the fighting over limited resources is likely to kill more than a billion people. Sure, this scenario is hard to "prove", but a consequentialist argument would make the abortion of some/most/all of these billion unborn humans a good moral action.
Posted by wibble, Monday, 20 March 2006 2:14:13 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
LAB, you might define morality as a conscious thought process, but if individuals naturally behave in a way that you consider moral, because they evolved that way, then clearly it is grounded in biology. That’s exactly what we find in other primate species, if we study primatology.

Social species evolved in certain ways which benefit each other, for the survival of that species. So killing our own, avoiding incest, feeling empathy
for others, altruism, food sharing, helping the weaker, condemning of deception, social exclusion of those individuals who don’t “follow the rules”,
pair bonding, are all grounded in biology. You might then sit down and define what comes naturally to many, because the thinking parts of your brain are a little larger then other species. That’s about all.

No brain function is just about thinking. We are affected by what we feel and
that involves our genetic history. That’s how the mind works.

“For much of the starving 3rd-world countries it isn't a
matter of over-population” LAB, when a third of women in the third world say that they they would like a choice on family planning and didn’t want another kid, its not amazing that the third world population is increasing by 80 million a year. Why should those women be denied the choices that 1st world women have? Why should they be forced to have children that they don’t want? What is your problem with letting women decide?

Nature kept a balance in the population of Africa, until European missionaries arrived and screwed up the natural system. Now its White European religious dogma
that is denying them choices.

Funnily enough LAB, its in Western countries that women are treated with some respect, despite their having rights to contraception and abortion. Its in third world
countries that they are treated like chattels, in countries where these choices are denied to them. Sounds like your male responsibility argument has been blown clean out of the water, by the prevailing facts
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 20 March 2006 2:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,
Would you believe it how people twist things to their own predetermined agenda. I said nothing about being born psycopathatic or about being born killers. What I said is: Just beacuse we can does not mean we do; and this makes it acceptable.

Of course 99.9% 0f people have no inclination to kill another especially their children. But the fact is that any one of us could; but that does not make it socially right. My point was: anyone can murder (no exception) using an implement or chemical or bare hands. Many of us would not consider killing our children, even if somtimes we might feel like doing it in a fit of rage.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 20 March 2006 5:50:51 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
Oops, my last post went to the wrong thread, its should have gone to the semantics one sorry.

Philo, I think you might be amazed how difficult alot of people would find it to kill anyone. Its not in their make up, its not part of their tendencies. Lots that I know, would most likely experience a heart attack before they killed anyone, the experience would be so traumatic for them. So I think there are exceptions. Give somebody an axe, a knife, a sheep or a chicken and ask them to turn it into meat. Most have a huge problem with that and will find themselves unable to do it, let alot go killing people.

My point is that our evolutionary past has an influence on who we are and how we behave. Many of those tendencies have evolved in us, as being part of a social species. Call them morality if you will.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 7:29:33 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
Article by Gordon Moyes former head of Wesley Welfare.

The Democrats Ugly Secret: Drug Company Payments to Legalise RU486
The financial records of the Australian Democrats disclose an ugly secret.

Despite the ailing influence and funding of the federal party, the Democrats were being increasingly bankrolled by the large drug companies and the pharmaceutical lobby leading up to their introduction of the bill to legalise RU486.

The Australian Democrats accepted this money, knowing that they were being paid in full for sponsoring the RU486 drug through the Parliament. Their little party was kept on life support by the supply of over one hundred thousand dollars by the pharmaceutical companies and their lobby.

Why did the Democrats accept this money, given that they make such a point of not selling out to big business? We all know these companies don't give money away for nothing, and that they expect something in return.

The Australian Democrats received regular payments from Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol-Myers Spuibb, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, and Medicines Australia. Individual payments often totalled well over $10,000, and sometimes multiple payments were made through a single financial year.

Since the 98/99 financial year the Australian Democrats received payments totalling $103,290 from drug companies and the pharmaceutical lobbyists.

While the general donations base of the Democrats collapsed a number of drug companies were lining up to join their Corporate Partnership Programme, Dr Moyes said.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 5:55:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I've been off line, but Yabby's still looking for women volunteers to kill their babies in case they develop a taste for eating chimps. Other posters debate how often or how early babies can/should be killed off.

Scout continues to proffer her private life and it seems we're supposed to either block our ears or avidly support her denial of the consequences of her actions. Scout any counsellor worth her/his salt will encourage acknowledgement of consequences and better future choices. No moving on until that point is reached...

Col's posts are still limited to self-contradictions and a heavy dose of vitriol and bile directed at anyone who deviates from his ever narrowing point of view, seemingly evolving from his own desire to justify his past actions.

Those of you who have been through a divorce would accept that you've made at least one 'poor' choice or you would not be divorced...accepting that there are two imperfect parties involved. (and NO - Catholics aren't expected to live with abusive or violent partners - at least retain some semblance of the truth)

Positive life choices don't begin with ignoring bad past choices, or covering them up - or killing off the evidence.

Facing and accepting consequences enables making better and more mature choices, especially when we also consider the effects we have on others.

If others and I remain happily married with children (to the one partner) for decades, I guess that indicates a positive choice and is something I might like to recommend.

On the other hand, if another lifestyle results in poor life choices, killing unborn babies, divorce and unhappiness, I might hesitate to try it myself...hardly rocket science - it seems logical surely.

I guess that's a good reason for the Catholic Church to continue to preach the tried and true rules to live by, even though human beings are imperfect and sometimes don't live up to them.

Good luck to all of you, I hope your quest for the good life leads you to the BETTER LIFE!
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 12:49:02 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
Should I let this thread end on a sanctimonious, prissy note? NO!

Meg1, if you are the woman of integrity you purport to be on this post - what would you do if you discovered your daughter or granddaughter was pregnant to a man she no longer liked or who the family heartily detested? Would you make her continue the pregnancy or would you support her if she decided to terminate the pregnancy.

As a mother you are aware of the risks entailed in pregnancy like diabetes, increased risk of tumours, incontinence later etc.

Or do you wish we had the Irish institution of Magdalen Laundries where wayward girls went to deliver their babies, then were incarcerated for the next 20 years until their looks and health had gone.

I am truly frightened by the thought of you providing counselling, I don't think you have the compassion to be helpful.
An example of compassionate counselling occurred when my father died in a catholic hospital. The elderly sister quickly established that prayer would not comfort the bereaved so sat with us quietly then explained the process of secular funereals. Compassion is approaching conversations with the client from their point of view and putting your views aside.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 4:44:40 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
Billie its clearly pointless to even think of reasoning with Meg,
as is evidenced by her posts. After all her vitriol, I'm sure
that the Catholics wish she were a Muslim instead :) So much
for the meek inheriting the earth, clearly Meg will miss out.

So far Meg has been extremely keen in wanting to tell other
women what to do with their uterus. So I have a solution for her.
Considering that she thinks that all those poor little IVF
embryos have a soul and need protecting from murder and considering
that she has a spare uterus doing nothing right now, perhaps
she could volunteer to save all those poor little embryos
from a dismal future and agree to have another one implanted every 9 months, feed them and clothe them until they are old enough etc.

If Meg cares about the souls and future of the little darlings, she will clearly want to rescue them. If she doesent, then all her talk on here has been no more then rhetoric, much as expected
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 9:39:42 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
Yabby, you never fail to lower the bar on the debate...speaking of vitriol you will need to re-read your own posts to find it :)

I would suggest that someone who argues for women to kill babies in order to reduce the population (because he feels they threaten chimps and bonobos, no less) has a serious credibility problem and probably an obsessive disorder or two to boot.

I love my pets too, Yabby, but reality is that I love my family more...and regard other peoples children more too.

I'd even choose life for you, Yabby, over a chimp...if the choice had to be made. What would your choice be? A little African child or a chimp?

Billie, you hypocritically suggest that you support the mother's choice, then ask if MY FAMILY OR I detested the 'man' who may father my grandchild or great-grandchild...would I encourage or allow an abortion...whichever. So much for her choice, huh?

Disliking a future son or daughter in law is no reason to cause problems for him/her, nor to kill my grandchild...what sort or reasoning is that?

You'd have to qualify as the in-law from Hell!

I have no grandchildren, or great-grandchildren so the situations you have raised are hypothetical. If my child were to make a decision that resulted in pregnancy...she has already made a choice. The consequences of that choice means she has a responsibility to decide how she will either raise or ask for assistance to raise the child or adopt.

I would support her decision to raise the child herself or would be prepared to do so myself, I would find it difficult if she were to adopt the child out but would respect her wishes if she decided to do so.

My like or dislike of the father would have no bearing on my feelings towards my daughter/grandaughter's child.

Your statements and questions expose your own bigotry and are no recommendation of your willingness to allow or welcome your own children/grandchildren's choice of partner, or your attitude towards their children.

God help them if they 'choose' someone you dislike...what hypocrisy!
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 10:45:54 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
Interesting forum. As the male partner in an unplanned pregnency, we both exercised a choice. She chose to not abort, and I chose to stay. We are both pro choice. This choice was the best option given the circumstances. She nearly aborted. This would have been the best long term outcome, if not for the greif associeted with the choice. This does not make having the child in a prevoisly planned no child marriage (result of failed contrception - 2 methods no less) a good one, merely an acceptable one. If there was no choice on either of our parts, I don't think the relationship would have survived. Abortion can't be an argument about society, rather about how society treats the people within it. As mentioned, the understanding and humanity of the individuals is what makes the society, not the other way around. The abortion debate has to remain about people and their right for self determination. I read this post with interest and can't help but be saddenned by the seemingly dogma motivated comments that remove the sensitivity from the crisis situations of individuals and couples in favour of enforcing an ideal. I can tell all of you with absolute conviction, as can at least one other poster, people considering abortions are in crisis - and it's one of life's big ones. Removing options in a crisis makes the crisis worse. No reasurance of "God's Will" or "God's love" can change that, and even if it could, religion embraced during crisis is not religion freely embraced. Pro lifers should be overjoyed - the baby will be born soon, but they must relise that this is what choice is, freedom to choose, and we've chosen to give it our best shot. To the pro lifers - Keep you rosaries off my wife's ovaries, and trust that people have the capicity to make the right choice. This will show that you actually care.
Posted by Know enough to know I don't know, Monday, 5 June 2006 3:32:54 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
Know enough, etc...Congratulations! I hope you come to terms with the imminent arrival of your son or daughter and to an acceptance rather than a regret of the circumstances of the conception.

As you have indicated, the choices were made by you and your partner, not the baby. With two failed contraceptive methods, the baby is still not 'to blame' for the conception.

Pro-lifers make choices too...are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to voice their concerns or views?

I refer to my comments above and re-iterate them.

When a society fails to value and protect the most vulnerable, the repercussions are soon evident in the loss of value all through the life cycle. They are abundantly clear in our society today.

I wish you the unexpected joy that your little one can bring you.

Pro-lifers live in the real world too. Most have experienced the difficulties and challenges of life too - accepting responsibility for our actions does not remove 'choice' it simply makes you more aware and thoughtful about the choices you make...
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 1:38:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"it simply makes you more aware and thoughtful about the choices you make..."

Meg, anti choicers want exactly that, to deny other people choices,
based on their religious dogma of holy sperms and eggs.

Thats the real problem! If they were so thoughtful about choices they make, they would be thoughtful about human suffering that they are causing with their blind following of the claims made by one particular pope. But then by that dogma, suffering is ok, its holy sperms and eggs that matter.

Luckily what you believe is fast going nowhere, even Catholics
agree http://www.catholicleader.com.au/index.php?id=3013

The way things are going Meg, there will only be Meg, Tony
and George left, waving their placards and singing their hail
Marys :)
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 2:27:52 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
Meg1, I think you're missing the point. I respect your right to choose life, I don't respect you're right to judge others on their choices. A feotus is not viable unless the parent/s choose to provide the environment in which it can grow. Life is fleeting, not sacred. Nature reminds us of this whenever she can. Not to disrespect life, but if the rights of the fetus are sacred, as an inseparable entity from the mother then interventions that may benefit the mother while adding risk to the baby in the event of complication are by consequence wrong. You can't have it both ways. Either you embrace the choices that modern medicine provides or you don't.

Choice is about deciding the best outcome given a situation and having options available. There may be no good outcome (our case) but you call it as best you can at the time. This is not ethically wrong, nor does it make abortion murder. The Baby has no choices, and neither it should, it is part of the mother during pregnancy. This fact will remain until babies can be grown ex utero. To assign it the rights of a minor is to make women little more than incubators with a duty of care. Her rights as a person legal are overridden by the rights of the foetus. This is not just.

on the personal note of your concern for my situation, thanks, but I'll leave it to my therapist to help me decide if this is worthy of congratulations. We don't blame the baby. I almost pity it, because we both have busy work schedules, and so it it will likely grow up around a nanny. I won't be ceasing the overseas travel that my income relies on, nor will I cease the domestic recreation that is inconsistent with children. We have found ourselves in a situation, as will the child. That's the cause and effect of the situation. The point here is that sometimes children happen, and it is not the majical outcome depicted in the marketing material of the parenting industry.
Posted by Know enough to know I don't know, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 2:38:53 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
Yabby, you’ve made yourself abundantly clear in your obsession on this and other threads regarding all-things-Catholic – it’s clear you’ve come into conflict with the teachings of the church on a particular issue and expect the church should bend the rules to suit your leanings. Others have made similar demands in the past. Whether it’s on abortion, homosexuality or any other issue. Like anything in life – rules apply to ‘membership’, even your local footie club…that’s life, that’s reality. You have the right to be Catholic, or not – you chose to leave the church, yet can’t accept that your own ‘choices’ aren’t the churches. It’s not Yabby, it’s the rest of the world who’s wrong, huh? Perhaps you could start a cult of your own…like so many others have, when the rules didn’t suit.

Know-enough-etc, life is BOTH-fleeting-and-sacred…wait until you hold that precious little life and ask yourself again…is he-she less dependent on you to feed and allow him-her to grow when a newborn, toddler…throughout childhood?

You’ve judged I’m judging others right to choose…quite the contrary, I passed no such judgement. My argument is that we make a choice when we make love to a life partner, a casual acquaintance, whomever…whether that sex-encounter results in the conception of a child through planning or failed contraceptives doesn’t change the result. Surely if we don’t condemn perpetrators of the most heinous crimes to death…we shouldn’t condemn the innocent unborn either. There’s a consequence to all our actions – children don’t make themselves.

The ‘choice’ is made before conception occurs…and you’ve simply accepted your responsibility, despite the failure of the contraceptives. I can appreciate the angst that would have caused. With contraceptives, babies are always a ‘mistake’ – we expect things we plan for to work and things we purchase to do the ‘job’ they’re designed for. Perhaps the drug companies should be sued in a class-action by all parents of babies conceived-through-failure-of-contraceptives. I don’t hear the babies complaining though…

‘There may be no good outcome (our case)’ I’m unsure what your real message is here…

tbc...
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 9:10:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont…

…if you truly feel your ‘choice’ isn’t the best option for you then have you considered others may welcome your baby as their own – perhaps a couple who haven’t any possibility of having their own child. Australia’s-lengthy-adoption-waiting-lists ensure that none can be regarded as ‘unwanted’.

Raising a child does require commitment, but so does any relationship, including a relationship between partners. As long as your child knows that you love him/her and the time you are with him/her develops a good relationship and wonderful memories together, you will find that children don’t need lots of material things but thrive on love and give back far more than they receive.

It’s not unusual under the circumstances of failed contraception to feel ambivalent or anxious about an expected child, your partner may have these anxieties - and then some - considering she will carry your child and give birth to him/her…perhaps will be the primary caregiver. I guess it’d be obvious that she’ll need to be supported emotionally as she comes to terms with the changes to her own ‘plans’ for the immediate future. I suspect your comment: ‘she chose to not abort and I chose to stay’, may hide more feelings for your partner than those expressed…as you espouse respect for the choices of others, that should also indicate that you’ll support those choices by accepting your share of the responsibilities involved.

The alternative ‘choice’ to kill the baby isn’t as simple as it sounds. Your therapist may have to develop a long-term relationship to guide you both after that decision…the statistics on post-abortion mental distress and trauma are documented, tragic and not uncommon. Many simply do not recover mentally, to say nothing of the medical consequences that may result.

The choice you’ve both made is anything but ‘no good outcome’… for all of you. My Congratulations is sincere as is my wish that your little one adds a new dimension to your life, despite being unplanned. There are many who would trade places with you in a heartbeat…a new life is not an option for them, ever…
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 9:14:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, I never chose to join any church, so I never had to choose to leave any either.

The Catholic Church does not choose to simply preach to its flock,
but tries where possible to influence politics, to force people
to live by its agenda, members or not. So as a highly political
organisation, its beliefs and opinions are open to scrutiny, as
are any other organisations involved in politics.

George Pell comments on Islam, fair enough. I comment on the Catholic Church, fair enough too.

The fact that Catholic policies around the world are actually causing suffering should be highlighted more often, alot of people are not aware of that. If more would protest about it loudly,
so much the better.

If the rules are wrong Meg, they need to be changed, especially if organisations try to impose rules on others, who are not even members.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 10:03:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting that the abortion debate allows people with no concept of an individual circumstance to describe outcomes as good, not knowing the situation. In a mutually agreed childless relationship gone wrong, the responsibility of the 'other' partner ends at the wallet, and for those of us lucky enough to not have to worry about this we can sleep at night knowing we have 'done the right thing'. What prohibiting abortion does (broken record...) is force people in to this situation without any respect for their ability to acces modern technology to make a choice. It does not make people good parents or adoption donors. I don't have good parent in me, and that's life for the kid. I'm starting to get the overwhelming impression that the catholic dogma I grew up with , and rejected, has not become more enlightened, and our sole responsibility above all else is reproducing and accepting the natural order. If I get a tumor, I'll have surgery thanks. I won't feel bad about it. If human life is sacred, then life's end is sacred too and no one should avail themselves of anything that removes human material from a human, regardless of outcome. After all, that tumor is human in conception and growth. It is a living tumor with human DNA, different to that of it's host. We remove tumors based on potential outcomes, by pharmacology, radiotherapy and surgery. You can substitute RU486 and D&C in their where appropriate. As a society we don't consider a tumor sacred. We do however give people a choice as to whether that are removed or not. This is called informed consent. Many may find that concept abhorent, but it gets back to an earlier comment that you can't have it both ways.

I wish some learned jewish people would throw their hat in the ring on this one, it is my understanding thay have it right, as I'm told they see the descision to keep/abort as one regarding the least bad outcome of a bad situation. Apologies to the jewish faith if I've got it wrong.
Posted by Know enough to know I don't know, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 3:30:05 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
Know enough to know I don't know,
Are you comparing tumors as equivalent to a foetus? What is the natural outcome of tumors? I thought in most all cases - Death! What is the outcome of a foetus? Rarely death to the host - and certainly the continuance of life and the gene of the parents. I suggest you ask any woman by which one she would rather to be afflicted?
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 11:24:26 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
Yabby, you’re a real contradiction. You’ve previously stated that you WERE Catholic…no one kicked you out…you made the choice to no longer practice the Catholic faith, as it seems has K-e-etc.

If the Catholic Church was imposing their ‘rules’ on you, you wouldn’t be living against the teachings of the church and there wouldn’t be any RU486 imported into the country or abortions performed here.

Clearly you’re being deliberately deceitful in your obsessive paranoia about the Catholic Church.

I hope you come to terms with what you really need to do to gain some peace in your life. Perhaps Know-enough-etc. can advise you on a good therapist to talk to…you might benefit. I am sorry that your life is so unhappy and troubled and that you cannot see the good in others who don’t share your views and obsessions.

Know-enough-etc, I’m not sure who I feel sorriest for, you, your unsupported partner or the awaited child. It’s practically a given that those anti-lifers who claim that it’s a ‘woman’s right to choose’ are the least likely to actually support the woman’s decision to actually make that choice...unless of course it’s to abort. The fact that both have contributed to the pregnancy seems to get quickly overlooked…the ‘me’ generation has to accept that Peter Pan really is just a fairy story and we all have to grow up and accept responsibilities for one another in our relationships.

The difference with your ‘tumour’ and the growing and developing child that your partner carries is your tumour will never have a life of it’s own, no matter how long it grows in your body…instead it’d probably kill you…of course you’d want your partner’s support if surgery was unsuccessful - I don’t know anyone who’d consider removal of a tumour ‘abhorrent’.

The developing foetus, however, will be viable and capable of living completely apart from his-her mother and father, and it’ll be capable of making his-her own decisions…and if treated well and given the opportunity, he-she may teach you a new understanding of love and commitment, adding new dimension to your lives.

tbc…
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 8 June 2006 10:41:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont…

Like any relationship, the more selfless the love, the more rich and rewarding the lives and relationships formed.

You’re both quick to dismiss the ‘children’ that might result from your sexual encounters as a ‘Catholic’ rule to be rejected at all costs…curious? Your partner K-e-etc, clearly cannot destroy a child of the ‘love’ she feels you share…what a tragedy that your love hasn’t reached that level of maturity…you’re still stuck at the ‘what-can-I-get-out-of-this-relationship’ level, rather than looking at what-you-can-contribute-to-it. Your comment regarding the ‘wallet’ isn’t one you need be proud of…after all if your partner is only there for the sex she provides, you’d be paying handsomely for that elsewhere too! Surely you don’t regard her as a possession to be ‘available-on-demand'? A baby would interrupt her accessibility, wouldn’t it? Remember that she is not 'to blame' for the failure of the contraceptives and resultant pregnancy either.

It is unfortunate that you’re merely following statistical behaviour for many men in your situation…just another sheep, not the ‘independent thinker’ you’d like to think you are.

Some men have developed their relationships past their own needs and wants alone, to where they build lifelong relationships with and for a family…I can recommend it and my own husband is an example of such a man. We want to share many more years with our own children and extended families…I’d recommend that too!

Reading Yabby’s and your own posts, you demonstrate a bitterness that could only sadden anyone close to you…that level of bitterness commonly results from extraordinary selfishness, not a generous spirit or a loving partner. I wonder how much freedom your partner’s enjoyed in your relationship? How much have you encouraged her to pursue her ‘career’ and taken a back seat to her ambitions? Judging from your desire to minimise your involvement to payment for the killing of your child, I guess not much…

Give yourself a chance to be really happy…do something selfless for your partner, you’d be amazed how rewarding it can be…even habit-forming…you’ve everything to gain!

So true Philo…well put! Here’s one woman who’d choose life not death!
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 8 June 2006 10:55:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How quick we are to miss a point. I'm sure I'm missing others just as well. Selfish? Sex on demand? Unsupportive? Lets look at some facts of the situation, just to put things in to a context. I have supported my wife through an eating disorder (onset before we met), subsequent depression and the myriad of other stuff that goes with the condition. There was not a large part of me thinking I could get something out of the situation, just a desire to be there for a wonderful person. Things on that front started looking up a few years ago, and am pleased to have been part of her recovery. I am the partner with the lower sex drive, and yes though you may find it strange that a male has a low sex drive, our relationship is not based on sex. She usually initiates things in that department. Unsupportive people would not have been there holding back long locks of hair during five hour bouts of morning sickness, or going to the supermarket in the middle of the night to satisfy a frequently strange craving. [I drew the line at some of the inedible stuff ;)]. I have supported her both emotionally and financially through a degree, read her essays helped with research and not complained when she job hopped for a long period of time before she clicked with an employer. She has been equally as good to me, when my company was fledgeling encouraging risks and being pleased for our rewards. She is very supportive on the kid front as well, realising that it's not ideal and having the understanding to make something work long term, whatever that is. She realises that the kid is caught in the crossfire, and knows that while it won't go without, daddy might be at work a lot. That's life, and the best of a bad situation. (cont'd)
Posted by Know enough to know I don't know, Thursday, 8 June 2006 1:32:05 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
Yabby you may be interested in this:

Right now, fake pregnancy counsellors are being allowed to operate unregulated in Australia. These organisations claim to offer unbiased professional advice, but in reality are staffed by anti-choice volunteers with little or no formal qualifications.

Some clients have even been called “murderers” by these so-called counsellors. Anti-choice activists disguise their views with generic sounding organisational names, promoting their "non-directive" services.

These groups don't have to disclose that they are anti-choice & refuse to refer for abortion. They have been reported to provide false and misleading information about abortion - including that it causes breast cancer, infertility and mental illness.

Worse, the Australian Government is funding some of these groups.

Let the government know that this is not acceptable. Women are entitled to all information about pregnancy – not just an edited version by anti-choicers.

The link below is an opportunity to register your complaint.

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign.asp?campaign_id=32

Thanks
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 8 June 2006 1:51:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continued from previous)
It does not neccessarily make me selfish or callous, and the example of the tumor - well the reaction was as expected. I hoped it would highlight the shades of grey in between the extremes. That was the intention. Everone's veiw of the grey area is different, and it does not make it right or wrong untill it acts negatively on others - for this to happen they have to be self aware, not simply exhibit a reflex in utero (I'm for well regulated voluntary euthinasea as well).

I'm glad other people have a great family life, good luck to them. I have a great marriage. It's not always easy, but it's worth fighting for. Not wanting kids, and supporting the right to abort (lets face it it's too late for me now, Kiddo is happening in a couple of weeks) does not make me inherently selfish or bitter any more than a barren couple who want kids could be considered bitter for seeking IVF.

But to those who think I am a blight on the world for my veiws, I got the reults of my final post vasectomy sample this morning. You have nothing to worry about......

Lastly, my right to choose stance is not as you put it support for abortion only. If it were, I don't think I'd be refering to my dearest one in the present and future tenses. I know multiple people who have had abortions, and who are not scarred for life. Many of our friends, previous group included are now having planned children. Maybe this is why I'm having one, I don't know it's not up to me. Right to choice by your inference would not allow this situation because after pregnancy occured their only choice would have been abortion. Free RU486 with the home pregnancy test.

Well, that's my contribution. Thanks for the debate. Watch out for the CSV hotlist, you can foster it as your own bundle of joy. You just have to wait untill the emotiona police make it illegal to leave the house during lullaby time.
Posted by Know enough to know I don't know, Thursday, 8 June 2006 5:33:56 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
Scout you may not like the facts but there are well researched studies into the causes of breast cancer in women and links with the removal of a healthy foetus after the breasts have begun to prepare for pregnancy. There is a 16 times greater chance after having an abortion of setting conditions to gain cancer of the breast than there is for heredity predispositions.

To remove the placenta from the womb before foetal maturity damages the lining of the womb and creates conditions that reduce the future possibilitiues of a sucessful pregnancy.

Because of the hormone rush in early pregnancy it can cause hormone imbalance longterm if the pregnancy is suddenly terminated. This resulting in mood changes, depression etc.
Contact: Professor Joel Brind Ph.D 9 Vassar Street Ploughkeepsie, NY 12601, USA. or www.abortionbreastcancer.com

Quote, "They have been reported to provide false and misleading information about abortion - including that it causes breast cancer, infertility and mental illness."
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 8 June 2006 7:36:55 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
ROFL Meg, now I must be unhappy and troubled or even bitter, because I highlight some of the rubbish that the Catholic Church
promotes. Clearly you know as much about the minds of skeptics
as the pope knows about the joys of sex :)

As like many children, my mother decided to have me baptised,
I had no say in the matter. The nuns tried to brainwash me like
so many other poor kiddies. They should be ashamed of themselves
for having told me so many lies.

True believers like yourself, who clearly can't cope in the world without your beliefs in the supernatural, would be amazed at how
peaceful the lives of us skeptics can be, once you get over the
all the weird stuff that you believe in. That does not mean that we don't have a strong sense of justice and when others peddle
nonsense or even cause suffering, that we don't feel strongly enough to expose as to why its nonsense or highlight the suffering.

There are good reasons why Catholics are having more and more trouble trying to impose their "rules" on people like me, or even on the majority of other Catholics. We stood up and still stand up and make sure that it won't happen again, as it used to be, if you study history. Our freedoms and rights were and are hard fought for.
Now its time that the third world should have similar rights
and freedoms, time for that suffering in the name of religious dogma
to end. I will make my contribution, along with a myriad of other
secular forces
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 8 June 2006 8:25:39 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
Well Philo you’ve sufficiently rebutted Scout’s anti-life propaganda. Which ‘fake’ family-planning-group was that info from Scout? Let’s protest against taxpayer-funds wasted there…

KETKIDK (Know-enough-etc), you’ve now turned full circle, a good thing, since you began espousing why your wife owes you – then the reasons you’ve stayed-her contribution…so my first assumption was possibly correct: ‘…I suspect your comment: ‘she chose to not abort and I chose to stay’, may hide more feelings for your partner than those expressed…’

Perhaps your postings may be as cathartic as your therapist’s visits…cheaper too! :)

‘I hoped it would highlight the shades of grey in between the extremes.’

Your comments on foetus’ and tumours gave no shades of grey at all – the differences are either end of the spectrum of life. Your comment regarding tumours being ‘conceived’ indicates your knowledge of biology could do with a brush-up…children ARE conceived, tumours are NOT…:)

‘Right to choice by your inference…only choice would have been abortion.’

On the contrary…a pro-lifer will always welcome the choice for life, no matter what has gone before – see the writings of Bernard Nathanson, (founder-US abortion movement, now an outspoken pro-lifer)…your ‘choice’ for a childless marriage, irrespective of contraceptive failures would’ve ensured that (best option)…your attitude initially indicated little else…then the tone of your statements changed…first the child is likened to a tumour (no rights)…now he-she’s ‘Kiddo’…your therapist may tell you that’s progress!

It may mean that you’re accepting your new status as a father and your life’s new and exciting dimension…embrace it, you’ll extend your horizons more than any overseas travel can…

You acknowledged the effects likely to result from killing your child when you said: ‘This (abortion) would have been the best long term outcome, if not for the greif associeted with the choice.’

It gives me great joy that your wife will not bear that agony of grief and loss…

Newly married English friends, who’d migrated to Australia befriended another newly married couple…both wanted children…the English couple’s first child arrived and others later followed. The other couple endured tests and surgery to ascertain why they couldn’t.

tbc…
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 9 June 2006 2:44:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont…

Nevertheless the couples remained close friends. One day, the childless-wife received test-results, prepared hubby's dinner, wrote him a note, went downstairs, doused-herself-with-petrol-and-set-herself-alight…dying-a-horrifying-death. Her note stated that test-results confirmed severe internal scarring, preventing both conception and possibility of IVF, as her uterus couldn't successfully implant or carry a child. The cause? An earlier abortion…she wrote how she’d-always-agonized-over-her-lost-child-and-how-she-could-no-longer-bear-her-loss, how-sorry-she-was…she’d-tried-to-forget-but-couldn’t-forgive-herself. She thanked the English family who had shared their lives and given them so much joy.

KETKIDK, her husband never re-married and never recovered…my friends were grief-stricken…agonizing that they’d misread her sadness as only a wish for children.

You’re fooling yourself if you think that there’re no burdens to carry on the loss of a child, however it happens…to have a hand in that child’s death takes that burden into another realm of grief and regret. All suffer grief to varying degrees.

Your friends may’ve had past abortions (you may be assuming that or may know it) however, it’s also not uncommon to later try to compensate for that loss with the birth of another child…

Your final comment is a little convoluted, so I have missed your meaning…but lullaby’s aren’t the only things babies and children love. Mine always like to hear about when Mum, Dad or Grandparents were young…you might re-live fond memories of loved ones yourself in the telling, I know we do. It’s surprising the memories that are recalled and become shared memories, re-told by our children.

If you’re wise, you won’t need the ‘lullaby police’ to lock you in at night…you’ll give this child the same level of commitment you would give a work project…the investment is likely to produce higher returns. Other fathers travel the world and maintain that commitment successfully.

I wish you and both of yours, a bright and happy beginning…to a wonderful future.

Speaking of convoluted…’True believers … would be amazed at how
peaceful the lives of us skeptics can be, once you get over the all the weird stuff that you believe in.’

So you believe in ‘weird stuff’ Yabby? ROFL Enough said : ))
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 9 June 2006 3:00:42 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
Wasn't going to contribute further, Leaving on monday for asia, but given a lazy friday afternoon I couldn't help myself. I find it sad to hear that peole who conceive post abortion are filling a void. The implication is just weird. It implies an abortion created the void, so what for those who have never aborted? Do they have abortion envy? I've never suggested my wife owes me an abortion. Thats the reason it's called choice. Was I a bit peeved at her keeping it - yes, but there you go. I'm sure there are things about your hubby that annoy you too.
As for my knowledge of biology, beleive me it's good. I'm relevantly degree qualified in that department, but this is not about sprouting degrees. After acknowledging those two things are extremes, how do you get from one side to the other? Did no one teach you interpolation/integration in your mathematics classes? there has to be something in between. Your definition of conception is philosophical not biological in nature. I wonder do you take the catholic veiw the jesuits taught me at school veiw that life resides in the sperm and not the egg? On the whole I fount them to be mysoginistic, and harmful. Charity work does not make up for bad philosphy.

My wife is a kettle of fish irrelevant to the debate. She's still not convinced she wants the kid, but knows that she couldn't handle adopting it out. If you want the angels, it's the in laws. Please Attack me for my bitter twisted existence, but end it there. You don't know enough about the situation. Your assumptions and comments have affirmed my pro choice stance. I simply can't reconcile what you say as right, because to me its an offensive opiate for the masses. Get them hooked, and they will need you forever. Maybe you should have been a priest? Sorry, I was neglecting the fact women don't reflect the image of your god. My bad. Pro life activist will have to do.
Posted by Know enough to know I don't know, Friday, 9 June 2006 3:46:24 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
"Charity work does not make up for bad philosphy."

Whew, how very true indeed. Well said!

Scout, thanks for the link and info. I was aware that those
tactics were going on in the US, not aware that they had reached
our shores here yet. The Muslims have a saying that the end
justifies the means, they are at least honest about it. Our
Christian Taliban often behave even worse, there seem to be no
limits to their devious tactics, in order to enforce their
religious agenda on the rest of us. They are just as fanatical as
their Muslim Taliban cousins, only perhaps less honest.

Meg, considering that your lot are wearing spikey chains and
whipping themselves in the name of religion, I'll let others
decide as to who believes weird stuff around here :)

BTW, you continue to claim the joys of selfless love, doing things
for that reason. You clearly don't yet understand how your brain
works. As you go around doing things that you think are so selfless,
they make you feel great. Aha, you get pleasure out of feeling
great. Because you love the feeling of that pleasure, is why you
really do them :) You are acting out of self interest dear...
so stop kidding yourself.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 9 June 2006 8:55:55 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
Yabby

I am relieved you got the link - I thought at first you had missed it. Philo (and Meg1), who claims to counsel pregnant women, has proven the truth of the promulgation of misinformation regarding abortion his claims that abortions cause cancer are simply wrong, if that was the case then D&C's would cause cancer too. I wonder if he claims government funding.

In case anyone is interested, here in Australian, anti-choice agencies are giving limited and often distorted information regarding pregnancy and choices - some of these agencies are receiving government funding. To voice your protest over this please register your protest at:

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign.asp?campaign_id=32

Women need ALL the facts, so that they can make up their own minds as to what is best for them.
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 10 June 2006 9:33:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout,
The website you posted is nothing more than a scare campaign based on misinformation. Please give us the facts not the scare agenda of pro-abortionists who wish to support the Chemical industries multimillions $$$ they made out of drugs and the medical clinics involved in the abortion industry. We well recognise you support the death industry, because you believe there are too many children in the Earth.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 10 June 2006 11:08:33 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
"Charity work does not make up for bad philosphy."

Neither does lack of charity, charity-work and bad philosophy… ( : ((

‘It implies an abortion created the void…’

…those affected would agree with that implication.

‘so what for those who’ve never aborted?’

…they get left-with-the-baby, without-the-extra-baggage, perhaps you’ll find out.

‘I've never suggested my wife owes me an abortion.’

‘There may be no good outcome (our case)’ and ‘In a mutually agreed childless relationship gone wrong, the responsibility of the 'other' partner ends at the wallet, and for those of us lucky enough to not have to worry about this we can sleep at night knowing we have 'done the right thing'

…sounds like you feel she’s asking for more than the ‘wallet’ – more than you owe?

‘Nature reminds us of this whenever she can. Not to disrespect life…’

You’re right on this one…there are consequences for taking life and nature is uncompromising…

‘I'm sure there are things about your hubby that annoy you too.’

I haven’t claimed to be perfect…but I’m enjoying our ‘work-in-progress’…our life together. : ))

‘As for my knowledge of biology, beleive me it's good.’...and...‘Your definition of conception is philosophical not biological in nature…’

Actually, you could brush up on your spelling, maths and philosophy definitions and your biology : ) Foetal conception is indeed biological, tumours aren’t ‘conceived’. Please define where you ‘fount’ your ‘veiw’…’mysoginistic’ too? Would a misogynist refer to his wife as a ‘kettle of fish irrelevant to the debate’ on her unborn child? I doubt the Jesuits taught you that…

It’s wonderful your son-daughter will have ‘angels’, like his-her maternal-grandparents, to watch over her-him…isn’t it?

Angels?…a Jesuit term too?…threads of ‘Catholic’ still…

‘Please Attack me for my bitter twisted existence…’

I’d rather suggest something more than a ‘bitter twisted existence’…like making real commitment to your wife and child’s lives.

‘an offensive opiate for the masses. Get them hooked, and they will need you forever.’

Are you selling condoms? Viagra perhaps? Your comment refers more accurately to these…If child-rearing’s so offensive to you, why assume it’s an ‘opiate’ for the masses?

tbc…
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 10 June 2006 11:41:50 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
(Cont…)

‘Pro-life activist’ is fine…as are my other areas of expertise…all of which I espouse from a position of knowledge and understanding of the subject and its difficulties.

Enjoy Asia in anticipation of a return to your ‘new-dimension’ as a father, not just biologically - hopefully.

Yabby’s obsession with ‘spikey chains’ is something I’m happy to remain unfamiliar with…however, his attachment to Muslim beliefs - ‘the end justifying the means’ is one his posts exemplify…I’ll let his own words condemn him on that score. He justifies killing babies, particularly black African babies…so they won’t eat his ‘evolving relatives’, (bonobos and chimps). There’s distinct similarity in the disrespect and callous destruction of, innocent human life between Yabby and the extremist Muslim community.

‘Aha, you get pleasure out of feeling great. Because you love the feeling of that pleasure, is why you really do them :)’

Yabby, if you only do things that make you feel bad or unhappy…there’s a name for that too…is that where your spikey chains come in?

I enjoy seeing benefits resulting from a selfless act…mine or anyone elses…that’s the way God made us…to enjoy doing good for one another. You’re missing the whole point of life if you haven’t grasped that yet. Nothing selfish about it, Yabby…try it! It’s not sinful to enjoy doing good for others…

There are times I feel tired or overloaded and push myself to do those ‘selfless acts for others’…and many times when no-one’s aware the deed is done…so no thanks either. That doesn’t mean there’s less good done, nor does it mean that I’m less pleased I’ve done it.

Wake up and smell the roses, Yabby. Life’s for living…for one another!

Scout, you’re not obtuse are you? Once you’ve worked out that abortions (D&C or however performed) will ALL produce the same increased risk (16%) of breast cancer...it's scary stuff isn’t it?

What sort of government funding do you receive? Are you working for an abortion clinic?...anti-life ‘counselling’ agency?...drug company?...on welfare?

Even commercial-abortionist"Dr" David Grundman won't import RU486 unless US studies exonerate it as the cause of 6-recent-post-abortion-deaths-in-the-US.

Scout would... ((:(
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 11 June 2006 12:09:34 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
When the arguments of anti-choicers fail they desperately indulge in outright slander.

The mark of a bully has always been lies. Meg1 and Philo consistently demonstrate their thuggery towards others.

The link I posted is to an organisation called Getup.

It is a non-partisan group, which was organised to question government agendas whether they be state or federal.

Their philosophy is as follows:

"GetUp was founded by Jeremy Heimans and David Madden, two young Australian graduates of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government who have worked at the vanguard of the new online organising and campaigning techniques in the US. In 2004, David and Jeremy helped start a national campaign on the decline in America's standing in the world under George Bush. This campaign gathered thousands of online supporters and millions of dollars in donations to support a national television advertising campaign. Prior to this, Jeremy and David worked on issues of global poverty, conflict, and development.

GetUp's Executive Director Brett Solomon has been working on social justice and development issues for more than ten years. In that time he founded and coordinated the International Youth Parliament with Oxfam, was appointed Campaign Coordinator at Amnesty International Australia and has consulted to Focus on the Global South.....

....GetUp brings together progressive people from all political backgrounds and parties, but is independent of all parties and receives no government funding.

* GetUp.org.au online members have no legal or other obligations to GetUp Ltd and may choose to participate or not in GetUp campaigns as they see fit."

http://www.getup.org.au/page.asp?page_id=1

The protest against anti-choice groups receiving government funding is just a small part of Getup's work.

Genuine counselling provides full information on all three possible options when women face an unplanned pregnancy - abortion, adoption and having a child. Genuine and professional counsellors ensure that the values of the women accessing the counselling drive any decision that she may make rather than impose their own views on the woman seeking their support.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 11 June 2006 9:55:15 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
Meg, spikey chains and whips, as you know, are part of Opus Dei
beliefs, which is a cult within the Catholic Church. This stuff
used to be hush hush, as was Opus Dei. Now its all exposed in
public, lots of red faces there within the Catholic Church.

Considering that your favourite pope made the founder, who invented all this stuff, a saint, tells us something about the wierd beliefs that Catholics have. Us skeptics simply reveal what others prefer
not revealed in public and keep reminding you of those things.

I analyse and cricise Muslim beliefs much like Catholic beliefs,
both are as wierd as one another, religious fanatics have much
in common.

I have never justified killing babies, as a fetus is not a baby.
You know that, but of course by being deceitful often enough, you hope that some mud will stick. You have few other arguments to make, so desparation sets in. Its a regular pattern of yours on here.

Your acts are not selfless at all Meg, you do them to make yourself
feel good, so that you can then brag about them. You would not do them, if they did not make you feel good. Its all tied up with brain chemistry and reward centres in the mind, but thats far above your head to understand lol, so no doubt you'll keep kidding yourself about your virtuous claims about what a good person you are.

I do lots of good for others, but at least I am honest enough to accept that they make me feel good, so that would be part of the motivation. Unlike you, I try not to kid myself.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 11 June 2006 11:27:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘The mark of a bully has always been lies…consistently demonstrate their thuggery towards others.’

Scout, you’ve clearly demonstrated your own lies, bullying and thuggery – all in one sentence. I’ll take your word about links between bullies and lies…you’ve obviously had the experience to know. The bullies I’ve met in life were usually cowards when confronted with the truth or someone with the courage to challenge their threats. You’ve demonstrated that once your bluster and deception is challenged with facts, you cave in like a pack of cards too…howling accusations to smoke-screen your claims being disproven.

Getup is either anti-life or has a small group of supporters who are anti-life, which is it Scout? Are they non-partisan or strongly partisan? If non-partisan, then there are likely to be a significant number of its members who are strongly pro-life also. Your diatribe, though irrelevant has gained some free publicity…but remains pointless regarding the debate.

Perusing your posts Scout, I can see how ‘genuine’ your attempts to provide ‘full information’ to pregnant women has been…lol…ROFL. ) : (

I guess you’re not acknowledging a biased viewpoint either are you?

You haven’t disproven Philo’s accurate demolition of your propaganda and as usual haven’t answered my questions either. You’ve made unsubstantiated accusations about government-funded pro-life organizations advising on pregnancy. Generic names? Which organizations are they, Scout?

Which are the organizations giving the anti-life message to your satisfaction? All government-funded too no doubt?

Yabby, your posts remain as predictable as ever…anti-life fanatics ‘have much in common’ – often railing against the faith they were born into to seek justification for their present life style or choices.

‘I analyse and cricise Muslim beliefs much like Catholic beliefs’…

Well this is obviously a blatant untruth…one doesn’t have to look past your last post…no pun intended.

‘I have never justified killing babies…’

No Yabby, you haven’t – there is NO justification for killing babies, at any age or stage or race…you haven’t and can’t justify killing babies, born or unborn…you’ve tried to unsuccessfully though.

tbc...
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 12:30:15 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
Cont...

Therefore, the following must have been written for you too…

‘You know that,(Yabby) but of course by being deceitful often enough, you hope that some mud will stick. You have few other arguments to make, so desparation sets in. Its a regular pattern of yours on here.’

How’s that for SELF-evaluation Yabby?

Here’s some more: ‘Your acts are not selfless at all…you do them to make yourself feel good, so that you can then brag about them.’

Followed by: ‘I do lots of good for others…they make me feel good, so that would be part of the motivation…I try not to kid myself.’

Was that bragging Yabby? … and ‘feeling good’ about doing ‘good for others’…

My previous post…”Yabby, if you only do things that make you feel bad or unhappy…there’s a name for that too…is that where your spikey chains come in?
I enjoy seeing benefits resulting from a selfless act…mine or anyone elses…that’s the way God made us…to enjoy doing good for one another. You’re missing the whole point of life if you haven’t grasped that yet. Nothing selfish about it, Yabby…try it! It’s not sinful to enjoy doing good for others…
There are times I feel tired or overloaded and push myself to do those ‘selfless acts for others’…and many times when no-one’s aware the deed is done…so no thanks either. That doesn’t mean there’s less good done, nor does it mean that I’m less pleased I’ve done it.
Wake up and smell the roses, Yabby. Life’s for living…for one another!”

Yes Yabby, I like to do good privately or otherwise, I push myself to do it even when I am tired because it is worthwhile and makes a difference to others and I’m a better person because of it. I enjoy seeing the joy in others as much as anyone…and it makes me appreciate what I have even more…you have a perverted sense of selfishness if you see the enjoyment of good deeds as selfish motivation…poor Yabby! You're a picture of sad, confused humanity...demonstrated in your own confused and convoluted posts.
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 12:38:29 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
Meg, you still miss the point entirely, as you continue to brag about what a selfless and virtuous person you are lol. But
you are not the first to delude yourself about yourself.

Fact is every second mother will tell you that she loves and
needs to be needed. Its their purpose in life, it has little
to do with religion, just good old evolution in action. If
you are ever interested in what is actually going on in that
brain of yours beyond what you are concious of, read up a
bit on oxytocin and its effect on female behaviour.

Feeling tired or overloaded has nothing to do with it. Notice
how people will climb Everest, nearly kill themselves, take
themselves to absolute limits, far more then Meg doing
so called "selfless acts" lol, why? For how it makes
them feel afterwards, thats why. You get your buzz out
of what you think is virtuous and selfless, perhaps you
enjoy bragging too, as seems to be the regular case
here. Fact is, if what you do, made you feel crappy,
you would not do it, you are after the buzz, just like
the mountain climber. So not that "selfless" at all lol.

Thats the fun part of neuroscience. We become aware of
whats actually going on in those Meg brains, things
which they aren't even concious or aware of.

Just as religion deludes them, they delude themselves,
time and time again.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 11:45:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, when discussing ‘pointless’-ness, you might like to include your very predictably pointless posts. I was tempted to simply re-post a previous comment…I doubt you’d respond any differently as a glance through your monotonously anti-Catholic and anti-life aggression would show…

For someone who preaches ‘choice’ for women…you have a great deal of bile to dish out to any woman who is pro-life…and from a man (?) who will never be in a position to make such a ‘choice’…

‘…you continue to brag about what a selfless and virtuous person you are lol.’

Rather than brag Yabby, I have responded to your endless paranoia or answered your accusations. Check you own self-aggrandisement…humility is not a virtue you are fond of practicing…

I have not listed my ‘selfless acts’ to ‘brag about’, in fact you have no list at all…nor have I made any attempt to brag, what would be the point in that? I doubt there’d be much enjoyment in it anyway…

I make no secret of my enjoyment in helping others, I am well aware of oxytocin and the wonders of the human mind…hardly a surprise when you consider that God created human beings and gave them the guidelines and the ability to live happy, fulfilled lives by not misusing the bodies He created for each of us…

Oxytocin is simply another of God’s gifts to us…it still doesn’t remove ‘free will’ to choose to do good or bad…you remain a contradiction of your own assertions in every respect, Yabby.

‘But you are not the first to delude yourself about yourself.’

No, you’ve got there first on that count too, Yabby, I’m not interested in following your lead on that score either – you delude yourself all you want, thanks anyway!

‘if what you do, made you feel crappy, you would not do it, you are after the buzz, just like
the mountain climber.’

Well Yabby…the mountain climber would feel very ‘crappy’ climbing Everest for a lot of the time…and he pushes on regardless. Why? Because he wills himself on to achieve a goal…

tbc…
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 16 June 2006 1:37:36 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
Cont…

Yes Yabby, I do feel tired and push myself on to achieve my goals too…and have no desire to trade my achievements for a trek up Everest…it isn’t on my list of priorities. I’ve trekked up mountains (no snow though) and enjoyed reaching the summit immensely at the time, but there are other heights to reach in life than those…and I haven’t had to abandon my principles or my mates to get there.

When it comes down to it, I’d suggest that recent reports of the mountain climbers of Everest climbing over the bodies of their fellow climbers … leaves a less than positive impression of the value of the climb…if that is an indication of how they end up afterwards…

They do it: “For how it makes them feel afterwards, thats why.”

So Yabby, how do you think they feel after leaving a mate to die on a freezing mountain? Pretty ‘crappy’ at a guess…

‘We become aware of whats actually going on in those … brains, things which they aren't even concious or aware of.’

Who’s kidding who Yabby? You have a grossly over-exaggerated opinion of your own ability and opinions – really… who’s ‘deluding themselves, time and time again…’ sounds like you’ve got a serious problem there.

If you only do the things that give you a ‘buzz’ Yabby, you either have a lot of well trained ‘chimps and bonobos’ who clean house for you, pay a ‘maid’, live in a grubby house…OR love to scrub, clean, wash, iron and polish…lol. I hope that ‘buzz’ isn’t from faulty electrical wiring in your house…resulting from poor maintenance and sloppy housekeeping. ROFL
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 16 June 2006 1:45:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not anti life at all Meg, in fact I am pro happy life and anti suffering. The difference between us is that you are pro so called holy sperms and pro suffering due to Catholic dogma.
I reject both philosophies.

I have as much right as you to comment on choice. If you want
to deny other people, male or female, the right to make decisions about their lives, due to weird religious beliefs,
then I will protest loudly and point out why I think that
your religious beliefs are weird. The church can’t have us
heretics burnt at the stake anymore, as she used to.

You certainly have bragged Meg, about your many so
called selfless acts. Read your own past posts. As you
also admit in different words, it’s the way you achieve your biochemical buzz.

Nothing amazing at all about that Meg, thats how high oxytocin motherly types evolved, for very good evolutionary reasons.
A lot of the time they want to mother and nurture those around them, whether they want it or not :)

Never underestimate the effects of the endocrine system on human and other species behaviour. Just like you don’t free will to have a crappy pms day, it comes kind of naturally, so various ligands, hormones and neurotransmitters affect your behaviour.
Your so called free will is not half as free as you think.

You are a product of your genes and your environment. That is
exactly why 95% of religious people, simply accept the religion that they were brainwashed with as kids. So where is the free will there? Had Meg been born in Iraq, there is a 95% chance that she would now be a devout little Muslim.

Housework? That’s easily fixed. That’s women’s work :)
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 16 June 2006 7:47:44 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
If, as you say Yabby, you have no free will, then what are you doing posting on this thread…you should be on your knees asking for forgiveness for straying from the faith you were born into…what’s the point of ‘choice’ if you haven’t any control over your mind’s impulses or chemical directives…perhaps there’s something to that free will after all…hmmmm.

I for one am happy to take responsibility for the choices and decisions I have and will make in my life time.

Whatever the chemistry of my mind or body Yabby, I decide how I will behave and hope that I can discipline myself to consider others, whatever the state of my health, mood, etc.

Your posts indicate that your ‘chemistry’ is as unbalanced as any woman experiencing a ‘crappy pms day’ … and that’s on every day you post, Yabby…what chemical do you suppose is causing that?

I guess a poorly developed social attitude and an unbalanced testosterone level is responsible for the ‘women’s work’ quip…or perhaps that’s as close to humour as you can come…is it, Yabby?

Are you suggesting that I’m a more highly ‘evolved’, ‘motherly type’ woman? You flatter me Yabby…thank you. I’ll let my children decide on that one as they are the recipients of my mothering.

If 95% of people born into a religion remain faithful to that religion, there would be a very different scenario in the world than there is … once again you’ve been caught out creating statistical propaganda Yabby…the truth is far more interesting and enlightening. You should try it occasionally…

‘I am pro happy life and anti suffering’

You’re confirming that you are completely delusional Yabby…life dishes out both – a healthy dose of maturity and realism is required in order to appreciate the happy and good times and deal with the suffering and loss that will inevitably come your way. For those who make it to Heaven…happiness and no more suffering will be eternal…that’s the promise of the creator…I guess sub-consciously you haven’t given up on Catholicism after all, Yabby?
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 17 June 2006 11:23:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, you really should read my posts a bit more closely, to see
what I actually wrote1 Perhaps
its just sloppy on your behalf, perhaps you are purposefully trying
to distort the truth once more.

I stand by my point that 95% of the religious, stick to the religion
that they were brainwashed with. Think of the billions of Hindus,
Buddhists, Muslims etc, who do not convert to some other religion.
I said nothing of people who dump religion, because they are educated
enough and rational enough to realise, the big con thats been going on in the god of the gaps story.

Once again, I did not say that people have no free will, I said that people have limited will, coloured by active endocrine systems and
emotional circuits, which let them rationalise away the irrational.
The world is full of the emotionally engulfed. So they are far
less free then they thought.

Fact is that natural selection has had its effect on human behaviour and still does. Go back 500 grandmothers in your geneology, a mere
eyeblink in evolutionary terms, and your ancestors lived in caves
and went out on hunting parties to survive. Mothers who fussed over their kids would have passed on their dna more readily, as less would have been eaten by lions, etc. Men who were great hunters would have done the same. So today when we see Rupert Murdoch go out and make yet another killing, he is following his innate tendencies, as much as Meg, who wants to mother and nurture everyone. People go nuts at sportgames, where they
cheer for their teams. Just like tribes of humans, going out in groups to bring home that trophy for dinner. You cannot ignore the
effect of natural selection on our evolutionary past and on our
behaviour today.

Nope I don't think you are more highly evolved lol. I think you are just another doting mother, whose oxytocin levels influence her behaviour, whether she is aware of it or not. The influence of natural selection on your ancestors is showing, thats all.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 18 June 2006 3:53:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,
I note you explain your whole world on the theory of evolution. What you have said is such nonsense. Please explain why the humblest of creatures protect their young. If as you believe early humans allowed their young to be eaten by lions, so only the protected survived; why do ants or spiders protect their unborn if their were no predators?
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 18 June 2006 4:22:40 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
"What you have said is such nonsense. Please explain why the humblest of creatures protect their young."

Philo, within any given species there are better and worse mothers.
Clearly good mothers have a better chance of their offspring surviving. I'm not sure which part you deny or are confused about.
That some mothers are better then others? That if mothers don't care
about their children it doesent matter?

The endorine systems of most mammals are in fact pretty similar.
Oxytocin affects the behaviour of many species, not just humans.

Natural selection matters, its happening around us every day.
Perhaps you need a trip to the countryside and out of the ratrace
to get back to real nature :)

Stop and smell the roses whilst you are there btw....
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 18 June 2006 10:54:34 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
Yabby,
You imagine the whole of life is random and uncontrolled evolution and you call it natural selection. That chemicals in the brain override human behaviours. Wrong! Natural selection involves the will to choose.

The fact is humans have will and can change the chemical balance in the brain by their thought responses. If you are sad, watch a few comedies, laugh a little and you will find the mind chemistry has changed. Our thought life, our fears, our hopes and dreams, our anger etc all produce the proteins that improve or damage brain health. These are produced by the will or responses to thoughts. It is true that some cannot overcome or prefer to not overcome their thoughts and their brain chemistry fails good mental health.

That is why the NT teaches faith and hope, and discipline of our thought life. Philippians 4: 8 "Finally; whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anyfting is excellent or worthy of praise - think on these things. Whatever you have learned, received, or heard, or seen in me develop by practise; and the God of peace will be with you."

I've been a dairy farmer and animal breeder for 39 years of my life I can tell you I have smelt more than roses in some surburban garden. I have witnessed or cared for over 20,000 animal births during that time and I can tell you in every case protective mothering kicked in when the calf, pup or foal was born. It is only human mothers who by their will, or by anothers imposing will decide to murder their infant.

Quote, "The endorine systems of most mammals are in fact pretty similar. Oxytocin affects the behaviour of many species, not just humans. Natural selection matters, its happening around us every day.
Perhaps you need a trip to the countryside and out of the ratrace
to get back to real nature. "
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 20 June 2006 6:36:15 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
Philo, modern brain imaging technologies have made it possible for us to have glimpses of the brain at work.
Nothing wrong about what I wrote at all, as brain chemistry
is involved in all brain functions.

If you are interested, Daniel Goleman’s “Emotional Intelligence” will explain to you in layman’s terms, some
of the things that have been discovered and bring you up
to date a bit.

Look at the brain how it evolved. The brainstem, which governs your automatic functions, breathing etc, your limbic system, where emotions are generated and your neocortex,
where you can think about what you feel.

Every thought is coloured to a larger or lesser extent by emotions, as you are always feeling something. Those circuits
are largely interconnected and often compete with one another. The more you feel, the less you think. In a rage,
you are not thinking straight for example.

Yes we can learn to think about what we feel, but it doesent
always come naturally. That’s why so many emotionally engulfed people run into all sorts of problems in life.

You are correct, oxytocin triggers at birth, that does not make
all mothers good mothers. Take a flock of sheep for instance.
Some mothers will run off in fear, some will run off chasing food, rather then staying with their young. Some are doting moms, who stand and defend their babies, even against
predators. There are differences in sheep moms, as there
are in human moms.

Few human mothers murder their infants, for embryos
and fetuses are not infants, but potential infants.
Human mothers can reason that if they don’t have the resources to raise the offspring, suffering for the whole family could be the outcome. So they can think ahead and can think
of avoiding suffering. Other species don’t have that option.

The old testament tells me to kill my neighbour for working on
the Sabbath, but I like my neighbour. So I’ll ignore the old
testament there, just as I think that there are those who know
more about brain function, then the writers of the old testament.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 20 June 2006 2:32:40 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
Excellent comments Philo…

Yabby, your posts are…predictable, lacking in substance or evidential proof and as contradictory as ever…are you forever in a rage…can’t think straight?

RE:Your ‘old testament’ arguments, you really didn’t understand your Catholic faith did you?

…embryos and foetus’ aren’t infants…but they are babies…abortion kills them...

Your claims of 95% retained faith remain statistically and evidentially unproven and…based on past and present religious trends, inaccurate. Explain break-aways like Anglicans, Lutherans, Christian Outreach, etc…or for that matter, religious converts. 5%?...not according to the evidence…people search until they find their own peace… Those Catholics who seek an understanding of Catholicism and practice their faith, are the ones who retain it...it may be different for those ‘beliefs’ where non-conformists are threatened with physical punishment or death if they leave…the retention factor would be considerably higher for them…

‘The influence of natural selection on your ancestors is showing, thats all.’

…and therefore Yabby, equally on you…I wonder how long your ancestors would’ve survived if they shared your life ‘choices’?...?

Your incorrect assumptions about my present situation tell as much about your sad desperation to justify your personal ‘choices’ or chemical fate, whatever you want to blame…as they do about the results of those poor choices on other individuals and generally.

So for you, it’s all that uncontrolled chemistry that’s to blame…additionally your genetic ancestry and environment…all overriding your less-than-free-will.

You can thank your 500-generations-ago grandmother too…your ancestors weren’t all eaten by lions, bears or your evolving ancestors either…she must’ve been a ‘high oxytocin motherly type’ or no Yabby either. We apparently share genetically superior hunter-type ancestry and faith-by-birth also…or perhaps your less-than-able-hunter forbears may have enjoyed the generosity of my ancestors who took pity on them, ensuring they ALL survived, then raised their subsequent generations to do the same…much like feeding African nations now…

Your misdirected analogy between Rupert Murdoch and hunter-gatherers is unsupported as the hunter-gatherers would’ve killed to eat immediately with the ‘tribe’, sharing what they had amongst family and tribe alike…and only as they needed it. Rupert Murdoch isn’t noted for taking only what he needs...

tbc...
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 20 June 2006 8:23:27 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
Cont…

…nor for sharing his bounty with others…nor for that matter, for acting in the best interests of the nation or ‘tribe’…

Take the present corporate-mentality…increase profits at the expense of the ‘masses’, the environment and the national interest…extravagantly party, party, party for tomorrow we die...

e.g., Sydney Harbour's environmental disaster...ignored by governments ALL!

Given that scenario…'cave-man' Rupert would have sent the best hunters out to hunt, then eaten the bulk of the beast with his own family and given the hunters the leftovers…discontent and hunger would have ensured that either, he would have:
1 …suffered the fate of the beast at the hand of his tribe,
2 …become lazy and unfit so that he couldn't run from predators, etc. or:
3 …lost his hunters who were too hungry and tired to catch the beasts and so would have been eaten themselves…somewhat like the scenario with the corporates today.

You see Yabby, Rupert’s brand of ‘leadership’ which is unproductive in itself, and dependent on fleecing the efforts of others…would have suffered the sort of fate that increasingly more and more corporate entities are facing today when governments can no longer support them because of the weight of public opinion…e.g., Enron, HIH. This is the only analogy - Without being propped up by government policies ... increasingly being captured by corporate election donations, corporates today would suffer the same fate as your fictitious character would have suffered in his tribal situation.

The unbridled corporate structure is as unproductive and damaging to the individual or national interest as is unbridled communism or any of the other –isms…like globalism…a balance or happy medium between both is the ideal…and all are dependent on a sense of justice and equity, a sense of fairness and charity to those who are vulnerable as well as incentives for those who are able and strong…you would have heard it preached from the pulpit often in your youth perhaps…

As Philo indicates…your theories on evolution are as nonsensical and contradictory as your theories on life…

NEWSBREAK: Woman suing abortionist after baby delivered in home toilet ALIVE...died in ambulance...Tragic!
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 20 June 2006 9:06:27 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
Lol Meg, the mountain of evidential proof for evolution theory
is so large, it makes Everest look like a mole hill. Every major
university on the planet teaches it, even the Catholic Church
accepts it. If you and Philo have never bothered to educate
yourselves and understand that mountain of evidence, that is
your problem, not the world's or my problem.

Embryos and fetuses become babies as they develop, they
are not yet babies. Check your semantics, before you become
emotionally engulfed.

My 95% claim is accurate. People stay Xtians, or Muslims,
or Hindus, or Buddhists. The fact that many have left the
Catholic brand of Xtianity, often because of its crazy
contraception policy, means that essentially their
beliefs remain the same, with a bit different flavour.
A bit like a coffee drinker who drinks a different brand
of coffee, he remains a coffee drinker.

I'm still not sure what you deny about evolution theory.
That your ancestors didn't live in caves? That you didn't
inherit their genes? That these genes don't matter?
That the earth is really only 6000 years old, as the
fundies claim?

My point about Murdoch was simply to explain why he
is like he is, I passed no personal opinion of what
I think of his behaviour. Before you pass comment
on the world around you, it makes sense to understand
it first of all, a point which it seems neither of
you have reached yet.

Old man Murdoch is still getting girls pregnant and
having babies in his late 70s. In evolutionary terms
he is still spreading his genes around. If that is
a good or bad thing, is a totally different debate
and I have said nothing about that at all on here.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 20 June 2006 10:55:54 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
Conveniently Yabby, you dismiss all but one of your ‘topics’ of interest…evolution is accepted as a THEORY only…there is a difference between that and your obsessive commentary. The Catholic Church accepts that even if evolution THEORY were so, at some point, your bonobo cousins would have been ensouled along the 'evolutionary path'in order to ‘humanise’ them as thinking, reasoning beings – not bonobos any longer…I have no problem with that THEORY, but there are many other possibilities also…simple as that Yabby.

‘Embryos and fetuses become babies as they develop, they are not yet babies’

Embryos and foetus’ are terms to define stages of human life Yabby…the next stage of development is an infant, then toddler…’baby’ covers all of these stages. Babies are no less HUMAN at each of these stages of life than an adolescent, adult or geriatric…therefore killing babies is as abhorrent as killing any of their fellow humans at each of the other stages of life.

Once again facts have disproven your imaginings…

Let’s see how your imagined 95% retentions measure up…a few notable examples, e.g., Cat Stevens (Christian to Islamic); Anthony Mundine (ditto)…who’s the model who converted to Islam in Bali again…Michelle Leslie…shall I continue Yabby? I attended school with an Islamic girl who later converted to Christianity and married a Christian – she was forced to leave all friends and family and break off contact with all of us for fear of retribution from her brothers, if they found her…they had endangered her life on three occasions already.

Still no statistical substantiation from Yabby though…you see we all have free will and choose our own path in life, irrespective of our race or creed.

From your internet perusal of subjects of the mind Yabby, you clearly feel that qualifies you to practice your own ‘bush’ brand of psychology in cyberspace…ROFL… : )))) ROFL : ())) Clearly your posts tell a different story…and indicate you have little grasp of ‘the world around you’…in fact you might like to rephrase that to an understanding of the world in your increasingly narrowing mind…

tbc...
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 23 June 2006 11:56:49 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
(Cont…)

…you obviously see no place for black African babies in your world plan…nor for most other humans it seems…I guess your mindset is an attempt to justify your own lifestyle…

Choices, choices…there’s that free will again…all that responsibility for oneself and one’s actions…great isn’t it?

BTW, you might like to refer back to earlier comments about Murdoch before denying any opinion on his antics…you wanted to sit around the campfire toasting…or toasting marshmallows with him…wasn’t that how it went?

Read a one-liner today that is appropriate at this point:

“Man’s way leads to a hopeless end – God’s way leads to endless hope.”

I hope all has gone well with the arrival of ‘Know-enough-to-know-I-don’t-know’s’ new arrival who has quite possibly been welcomed by his ‘angels’ and his parents by now…brings back beautiful memories of early days with my own babies…each one brings endless possibilities, endless hope…
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 24 June 2006 12:05:02 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
Lol Meg, no wonder you need hope to satisify your emotional
needs! Clearly your memory is going too now, as you make
claims about me and Murdoch around a campfire. Bollocks,
I never said anything of the sort. All that praying
and hoping must be affecting your braincells :)

Now we realise that you are scientifically illiterate
too, as you clearly don't understand how science differentiates
between hypotheses, laws and theories (which are basically facts)

Here is a URL to inform you:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

When the church conceded on evolution, they decided that they would
instead be focussed on peoples souls, for which of course they
have no evidence. In that case bonobos and chimps
would have souls too lol, for they can solve problems if
challenged, so clearly think and reason too.

Baby is a term used by the verbally challenged or religious
nuts, who don't know any better or to try to score semantic
points. Just as a zygote is not a baby, nor is an embryo
or a fetus. But according to the dogma of Meg, a fertilised
cell is a baby. Clearly Meg is as confused about this one,
as about me and Murdoch!

Mentioning 3 names of converts is a long way from
disproving my claim about 95% lol. Did you fail statistics
too at school? Considering that Cat Stevens is British and
Mundine Australian, you would need to show that millions
converted, given the Australian and British
populations.

So my claim stands. Meg has a 95% chance of having been a
good little Muslim, had she grown up in Iraq. But as the
Catholics brainwashed her first it seems, she is now a devout
little Catholic. So much for free will lol.

Black babies should have the same rights as 1st world babies.
They should be wanted by their mothers and not forced upon
their mothers. Parents should decide as
to how many children they can provide resources for. If they
are forced to have children that they don't want, the result
is much suffering and hunger, as we see in Africa every day.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 24 June 2006 9:33:54 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
That’s right Yabby…it was one around a BBQ with Murdoch or was it Packer…and a few anti-life mates wasn’t it? The mind-numbingly boring and predictable anti-life attacks on Catholics in those posts are all out of the same mould...you were just a guest at that one. Clearly I am not hanging on your every verbal diatribe...

I wouldn’t hurl too many ‘illiterate’ accusations Yabby…your own posts indicate a good spell-checker would help most of your work…as for your ‘scientific’ literacy…your knowledge is considerably lesser than your vast ego…

Bobobos and chimps probably do behave better than some humans – they don’t choose to abort their young, for any reason. However, you’re kidding yourself about their abilities Yabby…or have you a few in your ‘scientific bush laboratory’ that are learning to do neurosurgery with you? Well it is a favourite saying of a few neurosurgeons I know that even trained monkeys can do brainsurgery…I’ll stick to the human surgeons myself…you go with your rellies if you prefer.

ROFL…’verbally challenged’ and ‘nuts’ – that IS you making the accusations Yabby? Not describing yourself then…

RE: random converts named…so far you have given NO proof of your own ‘claims’…I gave a few random, well-known converts and can name many more…unnecessary as you have still failed to back up your own unsubstantiated nonsense at all.

Your own attempts to vilify anyone connected to your abandoned birth faith contradicts your claims also…

A bit late to offer any guise of concern for black African babies after your earlier abhorrent suggestions – but better late than never, huh?

Your suggestion that they should have the same rights as 1st world babies…should start with better access to basic human needs like clean water and adequate food…then they wouldn’t need to eat those chimps and bonobos…

Your suggested ‘rights’ seem to start and stop with killing them…hmmm, with ‘friends’ like you they need no enemies Yabby
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 25 June 2006 2:03:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bollocks Meg, I never mentioned a BBQ with anyone. Show me where
or apologise, as once again your mind is confused!

Spelling is about trivia Meg. Trivia if for trivial minds.
As Keating said, focus on the big picture. Unless of course
you are scatter brained.

You miss the point about bonobos. Kanzi could well be
smarter then you :)

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwlrc/biographies/kanzi.html

As they can think and reason, your claim as reason for
having a soul, clearly if you have a soul, they have a soul
too lol. In fact humans could learn from bonobos and chimps.
They live sustainably, don't wreck their environment,
unlike our species, which rapes and pillages wherever
it goes, creating an unsustainable world. They don't
become religious nuts either, another plus.

The 95% claim is a well known claim by Richard Dawkins.
It has never been challenged by the religious establishment,
as they know its true. The actual % of religious converts
is in fact very small in statistical terms. Religion is
basically a question of geography and brainwashing kids.

My claim regards Africa has always been the same. All African
women should have the right to family planning and abortion
services, just as first world women have. If parents only have
as many kids as they can provide food, water and shelter for,
as is their role, then most of the hunger and misery in Africa
would go away. If a woman wants the snip, as she feels she
has enough kids, so let her or her husband have the snip.
Forcing her to be a baby machine, in the name of religious
dogma, is criminal in my opinion. No wonder there is so much
misery in Africa, but then suffering is what your church seems
to have no problem with. Its easy for them in Rome, they live
in splendor there, with their megabucks in the Vatican Bank.
Even Opus Dei is said to be worth 2.8 billion $, richer then
most corporations.

The Catholic Church is a highly political machine, with a worldwide
network of lobbyists. Yup, I comment about political machines.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 25 June 2006 2:26:21 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
No Yabby you were just a ‘guest’ at the BBQ – very sensitive about BBQ’s are you? Or is it just the company that you might have been stuck with?

Spelling and grammar usually indicates rather more than trivia…except to those unable to grasp the language or use a spell check…

Keating had a very ‘big picture’ in mind for himself, perhaps his extensive collection of ‘gifted’ clocks or his well funded piggery was part of his ‘big picture’ – a pity the rest of the country are still paying for his excesses and his idea of big pictures…and you thought he was waxing philosophical…

Kanzi don’t abort their young either and animals live very simply…there’s a real plus!...no computers or fancy houses…why aren’t you living like them and moving into the jungle with your bonobo and chimp rellies…if they are your most intimate relatives…what’s stopping you?

You’re stretching the bounds of credibility with your ‘emotionally engulfed’ nonsense about your evolving ‘rellies’, generally expected amongst ‘nuts’ looking to find Alice’s tea-party…tell it to Barry bonobo and he’ll give you his ‘reasoned’ response right before he e-mails you his final results as a specialist Neurosurgeon…

The ‘95%’ claim and minimal converts claim by the famed Richard Dawkins has clearly not been challenged because it is so obviously fanciful…Ireland did not always have a high Catholic population…an extraordinarily large percentage of the population converted to Catholicism and subsequent generations have followed.

The contradictions of your ‘theories’ aren’t difficult to argue…but it’s the boring predictability that makes the exercise tedious.

‘Religion is basically a question of geography and brainwashing kids.’

So why do you bother with all your bile and anti-Catholic propaganda? … if 95% will always remain Catholic or Christian or whatever …and 5% will be ? faithless? or whatever your fate now holds for you Yabby, why are you wasting your time…perhaps you’d better get in early and convert the bonobos and chimps before the Christians or Muslims get to them…

tbc...
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 12:24:50 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
Cont…

Your intentions for African women and babies have been made graphically clear Yabby…rather than give them the dignity of being able to live in peace, farm their own food and drink clean water…i.e., live with dignity … you’d rather the women become ‘killing machines’…now that’s ‘criminal in my opinion’…there’s a ‘choice’ they’ll embrace as a priority…Yabby for Bonobo President…will you introduce ‘the snip’ or abortion as a ‘choice’ for the bonobos and chimps too? After all they shouldn’t be forced to breed young bonobos either, surely?

I guess your predictable Keating adulation means you can also be labeled as ‘highly political’ … so Yabby you’re just another party political ‘sheep’… not the free thinker you’d like to think you are…lol

If you’re so sure of the Pope and his Cardinals’ circumstances… ‘Its easy for them in Rome, they live in splendor there, with their megabucks in the Vatican Bank.’
Why don’t you join up again and see if there’s a well paid job in the Vatican for you … perhaps in charge of the African relief effort…still all talk and no facts Yabby…
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 12:28:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, your appeal to the ridiculous and absurd yet once again,
makes most of your post as fallacious as per normal. I guess
thats all you have, no arguments of substance and you clearly
don't understand the big picture.

As expected, you can't show that I mentioned any BBQ in any
of my posts. The point is not the BBQ, but that you either
deliberately invent whatever, or that your mind is flawed,
or perhaps a bit of both. So much for your credibility!

As a point of interest, not using a spell checker and leaving
the odd typo, is my way of finding out who has a trivial mind
and who has the ability to think beyond that.

Read your history as to how both Xtianity and Islam spread
around the world. Both have their share of violence, coersion,
Govt compulsion and brainwashing of children. Its not a pretty
picture.

The 95% argument stands and can be evidenced around the world
every day. There are no large shifts going on between the various
major religions.

I have good reasons for critising the Vatican. Their role should
be to preach to their flock, not to try to force non Catholics
to live by their dogma, using polical force as the vehicle.

Highlighting the fact that Catholic dogma is actually causing
much suffering in the third world, is well overdue. As a humanist
I believe in less suffering, not more.

If you want to give people dignity Meg, making them suffer more
is not the way to go about it, its bad philosophy and nothing
more then absurd dogma.

You are as much a killing machine as any other woman Meg. You
flush your little human egg down the toilet every month. It
dies. Even you accept that parents can only feed and clothe
so many children
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 10:37:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby I try not to call you names like ‘ridiculous and absurd’ but I accept that you are both…so too has your icon of political absurdity, Paul Keating proved to be so.

Nevertheless, let me summarize your ‘big picture’…illiterate and grammatically ignorant , anti-life sheep convinced that giving consideration for our fellow man and aiming to look out for all, including the weaker or more vulnerable amongst us…is a philosophy to be avoided and discredited at all costs in the hope that you can convince the rest of humanity that it is the ‘big picture’…not sure if I should ROFL or ): (

Either way it’s a pretty sick philosophy to aim for Yabby…and absurdly and ridiculously self-absorbed.

I would suggest that your ‘hero’ Paul has a history with clocks, taxpayer funded grants and piggeries that might suggest that you should reflect on the ‘people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’ adage…

It’s absurd and ridiculous that you can overlook such deficiencies in the subject of your adulation, but desperately seek to discredit those like Mother Teresa, who lived her life selflessly in the service of the poorest of the poor…for no personal reward at all.

I notice old Paul isn’t living in suburban conformity or environmentally too soundly either…where’s your sense of outrage at all that waste and injustice?

One would think that you would be arguing that a public figure is sufficiently well paid that he should not be seeking further financial or asset gain from the public purse, in the course of his public life…in fact most would see a Prime Minister involved in such activities as a total discrediting of the office he held and less than proper behaviour at the very least…but then there’s your pig..er, I mean ‘big picture…’

…is that squealing I hear from that WA bush hideout? Not more neurosurgery happening out there surely?

tbc...
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 29 June 2006 1:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont…

‘Both have their share of violence, coersion, Govt compulsion and brainwashing of children. Its not a pretty picture.’

...sounds like description of party-politics…you’ve maintained your ALP-birthright, even if you've abandoned your faith…adopting a grossly blinkered viewpoint that beggers any rational understanding.

Yabby-says-so-that’s-why-hmmmm, sounds like the intelligence and behaviour appropriate to a two-year-old’s reasoning capacity.

‘Their role should be to preach to their flock, not to try to force’ non-party-hacks ‘to live by their dogma, using polical force as the vehicle.’

That's Yabby’s description of party-political-strong-arm-tactics, right?

‘Highlighting the fact that’ party-political ‘dogma is actually causing much suffering in the third world, is well overdue.’

That's right, considering the effects of globalization on poorer nations and the middle-to-lower-income-earners in this country…including rural populations. You see Yabby, those ‘big picture’ economists like to ignore the big transnational corporations donating to all the major political parties (ALP too) so we've the present situation where government policy is identical whichever party is in power…they all accept ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune…’

Big corporations ignore ‘environmental’ considerations, Yabby, they don’t figure in their bottom line…

‘making them suffer more is not the way to go about it, its bad philosophy and nothing more then absurd dogma.

…here's another adage…’practice what you preach’??

Killing babies by tearing them limb-from-limb isn't humane…apply the above to aborting babies…

Yabby your fascination with flushing toilets indicates a ‘deep-seated’ psychological problem (pun intended)…like your many idiosyncrasies, I'll treat it with tolerance.

However, your dismal lack of understanding of the most basic biological facts is truly difficult to ignore…I feel sad that you've clearly missed any ‘birds-‘n’-bees’ discussion either…you should seek help in that area…it may've helped salvage your US ‘friend’ relationship…

Well I’ll leave you to your toilet-flushing fettish for a while Yabby, I have some work to do…and a life to live
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 29 June 2006 2:15:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another post full of absurdities and straw man arguments Meg.
By what you’ve written, I can only conclude that you don’t have the
intelligence to understand sound philosophies.

My politics are issue based, not party based, no political heroes, but
credit where credit is due. Keating understands economics, something
which you clearly don’t. Farmers, without the ability to trade overseas,
could shut up shop tomorrow. The poor are the first to benefit from
cheap clothes, cheap shoes etc. Its also ironic that two of the world’s
richest men have just given 80 billion $ to charity. You claim these people are evil, but it kind of makes your
mothering instincts, much as I am sure that you care, fairly irrelevant.
Being emotionally engulfed as you are Meg, does not solve world problems,
The big picture does. The proof is in people like Gates and Buffet, like
it or not, 80 billion from two “evil” individuals, makes a difference!

Mother Teresa was yet another religious fanatic who followed her feelings
and her dogma. We will perhaps never know, how much of the huge amount
of money that she raised, was actually used for the poor, how much landed up in the Vatican bank and how much landed up used to coerce more little Catholics.

Religion is about unproven dogma Meg. They draw their imaginary lines
in their sand and then want to force others to live by that claptrap. Why should we? Based on what evidence? Today’s world is a world of reason, not a world of superstition, as it once was.

The Catholic Church ignores environmental considerations Meg. Too many people on not enough land and ecosystems collapse, its one of
the laws of nature. But mothering is your strength, not biology. The Church is too tied up with its own fight with Islam, to seem to even
care.

Your “killing babies” is just rhetoric. You are against 486, you are
against the snip, you are against anything not part of Catholic dogma. It seems
you are unable to think for yourself Meg, without instructions from Rome.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 29 June 2006 9:40:36 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
Yabby, a few facts in your posts - even occasionally would be a plus...you are apparently incapable of dealing in facts. Keating and Howard's (yes they BOTH support it) so-called competition policy, has resulted in higher global poverty thanks to your Corporate 'mates'...the 'generosity' of Bill Gates and Co is just a big game...how much money can they spend in one lifetime anyway?

If they dealt with people fairly they would not accumulate the grossly obscene profits they have gained on the backs of others who have little or nothing for their efforts.

The abc provided some information recently on the situation in India:

'Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has begun a two day tour of India's main cotton belt where hundreds of farmers facing crippling debts and falling prices have committed suicide.'
The Indian PM is expected to announce a relief package of 40 billion rupees ($A1.17 billion) aimed at waiving off loans, improving irrigation and encouraging diversified farming.

'Federal government officials say more than 8,900 farmers have committed suicide since 2001 in four states hardest hit by an ongoing agricultural crisis, including 980 in Maharashtra alone.'

'The number has been dismissed as far too low by activists, and according to a government-backed report more than 4,100 farmers ended their lives in Maharashtra in 2004 alone.'

'Agriculture...employs some 60 per cent of the country's work force and accounts for a quarter of India's GDP.'

'Federal government figures say that close to a million farmers committed suicide between 1995 and 2003 nationwide.'

Your 'mate' Keating and his global Corporate 'mates' manipulate comodity prices through government policies and the futures markets and the victims are the world's farmers, with ALL farmers - developed and developing countries alike, suffering from the government and corporate pirates.

Your Big Picture is made up of very SMALL MINDED and greedy people, whichever way you paint it Yabby...

If government corruption and power-broking doesn't starve the world population, the corporate sector will engineer the same result anyway...wake up Yabby!
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 2 July 2006 11:52:35 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
Meg, everything I do and claim is based on facts. Problem is, that
people like you don't have access to them. Perhaps a subscription
to the Economist for a year, would bring you up to date with the
world. Their website contains some free articles, but not all.

June 26th 2003 has an article, using OECD and similar data, to show
that poverty has in fact decreased in the world. Its decreased
mainly in countries which are more globalised. Look at the huge rise
of the middle class in Asia for instance. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, now China joining in. Billions have been lifted out of poverty. Indian Economist Surjit Bhalla, in a book
for the Institute of International Economics, confirms those
findings.

Gate's charity is just a game? His 1.5 billion$ last year went
to vital research on a vaccine for aids, a vaccine for malaria,
he's tackling the 12 diseases that affect the third world most.
Rockefellar's foundation found a cure for yellow fever, amongst
many other things. What Gates and Buffett are doing is incredible for
the third world, for poverty and for diseases facing humanity.
They are also introducing accountability into charity, something
that has been sadly lacking. Two of the world's best brains
tackling third world problems, you are very foolish and ignorant
to not see the potential of that.

Read up a little on the real problems in India. Govt overregulation
of agriculture, has been a disaster, making everyone poorer.
Twenty million people farming 17 million acres, gives you some
idea of the size of a "farm" in India. They face a similar problem
as Rwanda, too many people on too little land. So now you think that
the solution is for the poorest and landless, to pay even more for
food? India has Govt warehouses full of food, yet hundreds of millions who can't afford to buy it

For facts check out Economist Feb 15th, 2001
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 3 July 2006 9:39:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One further point, whilst I think of it. You seem to think that
Gates and Buffet must have screwed people, to achieve their
fortunes. Think again.

I am no fan of MS, but credit where credit is due. In 1994,
Bill Gates released his Windows 3 for $46.50 and changed
the world as we know it. It was 5 times cheaper then the
only other option, Apple. Any company could use it, not
just Apple machines.

That effectively kickstarted the internet, PCs taking over
from mainframes and the fierce competition that ensued,
is the reason that the Meg's of this world can cheaply
access the net and argue with the Yabbies.

Gates gave consumers what they wanted, at an affordable
price, they voted with their wallets, much as probably
you did, when you bought a computer with a Windows operating
system.

What globalisation creates is competition. Companies hate
competition, they would prefer a monopoly, which means fat
profits for doing very little. I remember the bad old days
in Australia, where high import duties created a wealthy
Melbourne establishment, with pseudo monopolies, due to the
size of our market. Globalisation has taken away their monopolies,
its great for consumers, includng poor consumers.

Ask any farmer about the chemicals they buy from China, at
a third of the cost of what they used to pay. Ask the pensioner
who can now buy a sander, a saw and an angle grinder and afford
to do their own handyman work with powertools that used to
cost a fortune. The list is endless.

If you are against globalisation, then what you are saying is that
you think that the poor should pay one heck of a lot more for their
daily needs then they do now, as you think that some companies should
have pseudo monopolies. You don't understand economics Meg, I suggest that a subscription to the Economist would be a good idea.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 3 July 2006 10:05:51 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 31
  7. 32
  8. 33
  9. All

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