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 > Are abortionists a protected species? > Comments

Are abortionists a protected species? : Comments

By Melinda Tankard Reist, published 15/9/2006

While the witch-hunt against pregnancy support agencies continues, some abortionists leave women injured and psychologically traumatised.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Bla bla bla should a dentist that buggared up my filling go on some public list? get real!
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 15 September 2006 9:12:09 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
ANYONE who murders children should be appropriately PUNISHED!
Posted by mardisbro, Friday, 15 September 2006 9:16:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeking forgiveness from God for this gross crime of which many are involved is the only real way to healing damaged women's bodies and emotions.
Posted by runner, Friday, 15 September 2006 9:29:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hokay. Two suitably ignorant responses.

Kenny, you compare the experience to a bad trip to the dentist, when perhaps a more accurate analogy would be to describe a doctor that accidentally tore off your penis.

Still think it's trivial?

And mardisbro. Another eloquent appraisal from the pro-life camp. There are plenty of arguments I can level against that, but I'm pretty sure this forum is going to quickly spiral into a pro-choice v pro-life debate, and I'd rather not hasten that.

I don't know Melissa Tankard Reist's background, whether she is pro choice or pro life, but I didn't detect either view coming through, which is a credit to her, considering how passionate we tend to be about this issue.

The topic of the article is that there are abortion providers out there who are not taking proper precautions. If this is true, then it should be of concern to all Australians, not just women.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 15 September 2006 9:30:59 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
Because the subject is abortion there will be a line-up on one side of feminists (who drive the abortion debate) and on the other side the right-to-lifers (to whome it is black or white with nothing in between.

Neither side really wants to talk about effective, ethical delivery of abortion services.

I don't think that 'outing' people helps at all, but progressing them through the Courts gets results. Complain to your elected representatives if you think that the regulators are being too 'easy' or that self-regulation is ineffective.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 15 September 2006 10:07:13 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
Excellent article.

I think that the abortion industry does need to be scrutinised substantially more than it is currently.

I run a finance brokers firm and I have more regulations and rules than an industry that at performs at the very least a highly contravercial operation that many believe involves the termination of a human life.

I will never forget going to the doctor with my partner, who suspected she may be pregnant, and the first option offered was termination. This was prior to any other medical advice! I was gobsmacked. My partner is a completely healthy woman in her 20's, with a loving supporting partner and we would be over the moon if she was pregnant.

The abortion industry preys on women at a very emotional and delicate time in their lives.

No matter what side of the abortion fence you sit on 100,000 abortions a year with the number 1 reason given as being 'economical factors' in one of the richest nations on earth is a human tragedy in anyones eyes.
Posted by Daniel06, Friday, 15 September 2006 10:54:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wonderful TRTL by labelling those who abhore the brutal killing of infants as you have shows your utter arrogance and a closed mind.
Just look at what we are doing: We spend millions on IVF treatments , then spend millions on cold-bloodedly murdering defenceless infants, who by the way are not asked if they really want to be liquidated and flushed into the sewers or turned into pet food or whatever - how utterly and completely stupid. And who makes the money on both fronts yep that's it your friendly, caring doctors.
It is incomprehensible to me that decent medical people most who have families of their own can enjoy and make a great deal of lovely money destroying, in my views - nazi like- fellow humans. What an utterly foul, stinking and disgusting bloody trade. "What does your Dad/Mother do?" "Oh he/she kills totally defenceless little babies" Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Friday, 15 September 2006 12:12:52 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
Good point, there's such a big deal about abortion counselling centres that don't counsel women to have abortions, but not enough about those that don't counsel against abortions. Really, a woman [and the father of the child] need to be shown all three options before they can make an informed decision.

For my 2 cents, my mother's doctor also told her to get an abortion as soon as she found out she was pregnant. "You're 18, this child will ruin your life" he said, reaching for the phone to schedule an appointment (to an abortion clinic) before she could even grasp what was going on. I'm certainly glad she told him to put the phone down and get lost.
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Friday, 15 September 2006 1:58:12 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...well,
How are you all ? For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What friut had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed ? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
So, sanctify yourselves for tomorrow the Lord will do wonders among you..that all the people of the earth might know the hand of the Lord, that it is Mighty that ye might "fear the Lord your God forever." Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall "direct thy paths." Be not wise in thine own eyes: "fear the Lord, and depart from evil. It shall be "health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones".
Honour the Lord, and despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of His correction; for the whom the Lord loveth He correcteth; even as a Father the son in whom he delighted.
The curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked; but He blesseth the habitation of the just. "sure;y The Lord scorneth the scorners; but He giveth grace unto the lowly. The wise shall inherit Glory: but shame "shall be the promotion of the fools."

Hear ye children, the instruction of a Father Who Art in Heaven as we say together "Our Father, who Art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name."
Posted by Lady, Friday, 15 September 2006 2:02:13 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
here we go again. Melinda Tankard Reist is very firmly pro-life and has very strong affiliations with the Catholic Church. Thanks Melinda for highlighting the dangers of surgical abortion. There are risks inherent in living and women in labour have very high mortality rates in places and times where there is no modern medicine. In the 1770s the most common cause of death for women was childbirth, followed by burns from cooking fires. My understanding is that abortion is considerably safer for the woman than childbirth.

In the last 12 months there have been forums on whether women should have access to RU486 or mifepristone to enable medical abortion to occur at an earlier stage than is possible with surgical abortion.
Posted by billie, Friday, 15 September 2006 2:45:29 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
Numbat, in response to your comment.

I wasn't trying to cast aspersions on those on either side of the debate, but merely pointing out that the first two (three I might add) responses weren't particularly informative or persuasive.
Lets be honest 'they'll be punished,' 'seek forgiveness from god' and 'it's just like a botched dentist trip' are hardly reasoned, well informed arguments.

I'll admit my sarcastic phrasing of 'another eloquent appraisal' comes across sounding somewhat dismissive of the other sides opinions, and for that and that alone I offer my apologies.

Though the true example of "arrogance" and "closed mindedness" would be using emotive arguments like saying foetuses could become petfood, or implying they are flushed down the toilet. That is plain childish, and warping the debate.

The debate I might add, is about dangerous practices within the abortion industry, something I pointed out is worth investigating. The entire point of my post was to try and keep this debate from degenerating into an "abortion good" or "abortion bad" slanging match. You appear to have deliberately ignored the point of my post in favour of pushing this wheelbarrow, and holding me hostage as a receptacle for your anger.

I'm willing to see the IVF side of your argument as having merit, but the rest of it is purely emotive, and I would encourage you to focus on practical arguments as they will get you much further and are much more persuasive. Bible passages such as Lady's don't carry much weight in this I'm afraid.

I may be pro-choice, but I am willing to concede this article has merit, despite being written by a pro-life advocate (says billie).

Now who of us, honestly, is being closed minded? And can we please get back to the topic of the article?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 15 September 2006 5:00:10 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
Billie
Yep here we go again she never gives up trying to tell others what to do with their life what to think and even when.

ok Melinda we get it that you would not want a termination.

Goody. Plenty would so why dont you just back off and leave people alone.
We know a lady who has several kids.

She is not married. She went to obtain a termination but having no money had to go public.
Now she is being told she cant be put out because of the fussy feeling of bonding with the bay straight after its born.

This is the pro Churchy push ripe through the Government hospitals.
They told her[she is 24] that it was hard to get the tube down her throat and she could die.
Nice!
She cant give birth naturally but they want her awake to be cut open.

Tell you what you people really need to be sued by somebody pushing this agenda and the case to be very public.

Shes been bullied into another kid she really cant afford.

Shes not in a fit state to mangange 4 kids under 5 but he keep pushing your agenda.

So clearly its going to effect the other kids as well.

Too dam right these church Councilers need to be replaced with open minded fair main stream councliers
Posted by Wendy Lewthwaite, Friday, 15 September 2006 7:06:30 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
3 things: 90+ abortions are illegal (according to the legislation) but that fact is generally ignored.
90+% of articles written about abortion don't even mention contraception.
Most abortions are tax-payer funded.
Posted by citizen, Friday, 15 September 2006 7:18:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Bla bla bla should a dentist that buggared up my filling go on some public list? get real!"
Dentists are put under a lot of scrutiny, basically you cannot make mistakes. Go have a look at one of those magazines released by the dental board and all the cases about trivial errors that go on. Completely off topic i know :P.

But I think what Melinda is eluding to is that there are some strongly pro-choice ppl in high places who have an agenda to protect any form of abortion in our society. So medical professionals are given an easier break in this field than the others. I completely agree with this.
Posted by justin86, Saturday, 16 September 2006 2:08:53 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
Hang on, Melinda: if it’s you who genuinely believes there is a widespread problem with the quality of abortion services, isn’t it your responsibility to make sure the complaints go through to the HCCC and the relevant medical boards? Your dismissal of the process with “Oh, but they just sit on their hands,” is unconvincing. My guess is that the regulatory authorities are probably better at picking an ideologically motivated complaint from a bona fide one than you think.

I’m certainly not arguing that substandard practice can’t occur in this field, or any other medical field. That’s why we have regulation and standards of accountability. If you believe that this process is a failure, you need to identify in exactly what way: does it take too long? Are the standards of proof too onerous? Is the complainant refused due process or not treated with respect? Are the standards themselves too low? All of these are valid questions.

Could I suggest that your apparent opposition to abortion possibly indicates that there is no standard against which an abortionist could be seen by you to be up to scratch?

If, as justin86 suggests, there is some kind of conspiracy to protect dodgy practitioners because “those in high places” are blinded by their ideological beliefs, then that is indeed a scandal. But I’m not convinced of this by your article.

You say, “You would think those who claim to care about women would have demanded Sood be stripped of her licence earlier.”

Did you?
Posted by Snout, Saturday, 16 September 2006 11:54:07 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
Kenny – you are right.

Doubtless the “meddlers” will and try to do otherwise (remembering that they have no legal right to interfere in the sovereign choices of any woman who seeks abortion).

Every profession has its “non-performers”, the medical profession being no exception.

Queensland has had disastrous experiences with surgeons and doctors in recent years – far worse than this “Sood” fellow.
So should we stop all surgery because of that and tell critically ill patients to go away and wait until the world is a perfect place?

The issue is not

should a woman expect good professional treatment from a doctor in response to any condition

but –

should she be allowed to seek that professional treatment?

And to reflect on Snout’s observation -

Let us not be deceived by the faux-emotion of Tankard Reist.

She and the other control fascists just want to deny every woman the right to seek the services of any doctor who performs abortions, not just this doctor.

It is her near hysterical extremism which society needs to be protected against and possibly with more urgency than from incompetent doctors
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 16 September 2006 5:13:15 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
Col R: Kenny you are right. In what? Kenny equates the killing of an innocent, helpless human infant with a botched tooth extraction/filling. Marvellous eh? people like you mob decry the treatment meeted out to Hicks, you know locked up without a fair trial. Yet you paragons of decency and mercy have no problems no qualms at all condemning an innocent, guiltless infant to death and that without any sort of trial at all.
'Meddlers' Col? Then let us not be deceived by the faux (false in your wonderful judgement-yet you have never met her, or talked with her- I bet you have a judgement on all the infants that have had the temerity to secret themselves in the body of a mother as well! Do you cease being atrociously judgemental at that bile- no!'She and other control fascists' You are the one condoning the killing of innocent babies just as the real fascist did during the time of hitler not Tankard. Do you stop even yet? - no! 'It's her hysterical extremism which society needs to be protected against' What all this woman wants to do is to save the precious lives of untried, unjudged, innocent, helpless babies not butcher them. Many of these cast-off and shunned aborted humans who they now find suffer appalling, horrifically painful deaths. You do come across as a judgemental creature with so little mercy or love a sad, sad bit of mankind Col.
Posted by numbat, Sunday, 17 September 2006 2:54:54 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
The question of what constitutes good quality pregnancy counseling is a serious one.

What it should not be is an exercise in trying to convince your client of your point of view, and this is the problem with counseling services run by organizations with an ideological opposition to abortion. There is a place for such “pregnancy support agencies” – for women who have already decided to continue a pregnancy. But for women who are in the process of trying to make a decision such a bias can be unhelpful or manipulative, which is why a woman seeking counseling should have the right to know about bias before she starts.

Much of Melinda’s research, it seems, focuses on the experiences of women as they try to negotiate this decision, with a particular emphasis on the pressures some women feel to abort rather than continue, and the very real grief some women feel about their own abortions. It is very important that such experience not be silenced, and that counseling and support services not gloss over this side of the issue.

However I don’t that such insensitivity to the complexities of women’s real experience is as widespread a problem as Melinda suggests, at least with the larger and more reputable counseling services.

There are good psychological reasons why a woman who is considering abortion and who subsequently decides to go through with a “defiant birth” might view what is in fact neutral counseling as pressure to abort. It is often part of the natural process of resolving ambivalence to project the discarded side of the argument on to another person. This is a fine and healthy thing to do, and good counselors know and accept this. But it is important to recognize this phenomenon when you are trying to analyse the process for bias. There is no place for ideological agendas, whether pro or anti abortion, in this sort of counseling.
Posted by Snout, Sunday, 17 September 2006 3:37:10 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
I am firmly of the belief that 'abortion counselling' or 'pregnancy counselling' should take place well and truly before sex even takes place.

Perhaps as early as primary school the basic nature of the human foetus should be placed before children.

In early high school, as well as 'sex education' involving the biomechanics of reproduction and contraception there should be further examination of what constitutes a human life and what will be both the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy and the options for dealing with that pregnancy.

In an ideal world there would be no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy.

At the same time, in an ideal world, if a foetus is simply a parasite until it is born, then either the mother OR the father should have the choice of having the pregnancy terminated. After all, if a woman gives consent to sex, then surely the man should have the right to consent to what happens to any parasite that results from that sex? Why should women be able to decide not to be a parent, but men be denied that choice?

Or is that too much for the pro-choice lobby to bear? Should parenthood or non-parenthood only be a choice available to the mother?
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 17 September 2006 4:24:25 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
Let me get this straight, Hamlet: are you suggesting that a woman who is pregnant and wants to continue the pregnancy ought to be forced to have an abortion if that's what the alleged father wants?

No, I don't think that's what is meant by pro choice.

What a peculiar suggestion.
Posted by Snout, Sunday, 17 September 2006 4:32:16 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
Snout, so you believe that men should be responsible for paying child support for a child that they did not consent to until that child is at least 18 years old, and in some cases, such as if the child goes to university etc, for up to around 25 years old or older?

If women can opt out of the responsibility of parenthood, though abortion, or by giving a child away for adoption, then why not men?

Actually I firmly believe that neither should be able to opt out of that responsibility: when both have the sex, then both bear responsibility for the outcome of that sex.

Then you look at the ridiculous situation where a male under 16 has been 'seduced' by an older woman who becomes pregnant. The woman has committed a crime and can be punished, yet the male is responsible for paying child support for long after the woman's short gaol term, or more likely good behaviour bond, has long since finished.

And I love playing devil's advocate, but just think re the abortion issue, why shouldn't males have the right to a place in the decision as to whether their DNA reaches viability or not?
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 17 September 2006 4:56:42 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
probably hamlet because men dont actually have to subject their bodies to having an abortion.

Women face a harder joice on whether to actually have a child or not as it is a lot easier for a man to just walk away when the child rearing gets tough and it is a twenty four hour a day job with young children. It is usually the mother who is left holding the baby.

Recent government statistics showed that a big percentage of men are still not giving their partners enough support when it comes to the actual hands on care required by young children.

If the men who have to pay mantenance had to pay for all the extra child care hours that the women put in like having to walk around the shops for two hours trying on shoes for the children and all the rest of it the money wouldnt cover those hours.

Having said that I really dont much like the idea of abortions, but maybe the community and the people who condem a woman with four children who feels despair at having a fifth could step up to the plate and give that woman more financial and practical support in caring for the child maybe they could organize some kind of support organization that does more than just talk or counsel.

Its easy to force the woman to have the child and then just walk away and go back to your world of only two children or no children where you dont have the overwhelming workload or financial burden.
What I'm saying is put your money where your mouth is.
Sacrifice some of your hours comfortably watching TV and organize some sort of helping hand for this mother who falls in to bed exhausted at midnight after coping with her workload only to wake up again when the baby wakes up for a feed at
12.30am, 3.00am and having to get up at 5.30am every day when the baby wakes up and wont go back to sleep.
Posted by sharkfin, Sunday, 17 September 2006 10:53:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Numbat - fair enough you want to argue your point, but if you're going to keep calling others judgmental I suggest you analyse the content of your posts. No offence, but they come across being far more judgmental than all the others I've seen.
That argument cuts both ways.

You keep drawing attention to the notion that innocent babies are being killed. This is where pro life and pro choice advocates see things differently.

Pro choice people see a foetus, that has yet to experience life, yet to take it's first breath.
Pro life advocates see a living baby, probably with a name.

Now I guess you'll want to argue your point, using all kinds of emotion laden arguments, labelling it murder, an atrocity, a holocaust of sorts. Possibly even labelling pro-choice advocates 'fascists' which I see as a refusal to even consider that the other perception is worth considering.

The thing is, pro life and pro choice advocates see it very differently. What really annoys me about the debate, is the unwillingness on both sides to even see the other side's point of view. That is the height of being judgmental.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 18 September 2006 9:44:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some women have to work out of pure necessity, however many choose to work and do not need to.

Many abortions are pre-destined to occur because young women have been imbued with traditional feminist dogma through their education and by the media that motherhood and family are secondary roles to the pursuit of status, power and materialism. Staying at home is frowned upon and ‘homemakers’ are seen as stupid traitors to the cause.

The feminist establishment tells us that our lives are only meaningful and worthwhile if we have broken down barriers in the patriarchy and are driving a ‘Beamer’ (BMW); going to restaurants and weraing ‘name’ labels.. So we feel obliged to have a successful career before having children. But climbing the greasy pole takes time and sacrifices have to be made. Sacrifices include delayed fertility and perhaps, an abortion or two.

In the feminist zeal to liberate women from suburbia it was exaggerated how long biologically women could wait in order to conceive. However it is now known that many women are not able to conceive if they wait until their late 30's or their 40's. The twenties are optimal.

Further, there is a biological difference between men and women. Gender is not a social construct. This is evidenced by the fact that in virtually every other society and culture, women also play the role of nurturer and care giver. Why should young women be made to feel inadequate because they choose to sacrifice status and conspicuous consumption for the greater joys of motherhood?

It is sad that through our education system and our universities we are funding feminist establishment propaganda aimed at young women when they are most vulnerable and that those messages are not balanced by positive and constructive family studies.

It is also very sad that we offer so little encouragement and practical support to young mothers and families.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 18 September 2006 10:20:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hamlet,

Curse this two post rule! I realized what you were getting at about two nanoseconds after I pushed the “post comment” button.

Your question, “If women can opt out of the responsibility of parenthood, though abortion, or by giving a child away for adoption, then why not men?” is a valid one, and opens several cans of worms, including ones about male parental responsibility and choices, responsibility for contraception, paternity fraud, and child support. I don’t have a simple answer, except to observe that a ban on abortion will solve none of these dilemmas.

There are, I believe, many perfectly decent and sincere reasons to oppose abortion. This isn’t one of them.

Your description of an embryo or a foetus as a “parasite” echoes the use of similar terms (“tumour”, “space occupying lesion”) on other threads by posters who I gather have strongly anti abortion views. I have never heard these terms used to describe a pregnancy by pro-choice advocates, or by anyone in the medical or counseling professions.

Your point about men having little or no say in the outcome of a pregnancy despite the expectation they will shoulder the financial responsibilities is a fair one, although it's off the topic of Melinda’s article. She seems to me to be arguing that negligence and poor practice in the abortion field are being ignored for political reasons, and connects this in some way to an argument that pregnancy support services shouldn’t have to declare their ideological positions. The first part of this deserves some examination, although I don’t think Melinda is convincing in her article. The second is a non sequitur
Posted by Snout, Monday, 18 September 2006 4:11:32 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
TRTL: "IF?" the pro-choice advocates have made a mistake,I mean just how can they tell that this small human being that feels pain, moves,feeds, and lives on oxygen breathed by its mother is not alive and if these foetus' are alive without taking their first unaided breath. How do they apologise? They may shout "sorry" into a vast empty room - so to speak yet the dead infants will not hear this pathetic apology and moreover this late apology will be utterly bloody useless eh? Regards, numbat
Posted by numbat, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 3:31:29 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
Numbat,

You are assuming that a zygote, embryo, or early fetus has the same moral status as a baby or adult human. This actually only became the dominant Christian position in the 17th century. Before then Christian tradition generally held that abortion was wrong at any stage, but that the fetus did not definitely become fully human until some time in the second trimester. I think that the "moment of conception" doctrine has advantages for demographic competition, keeping women in their place, and securing a supply of cheap labour, but that it isn't what people really believe.

If we accepted the arguments of the animal rights people then we would have the same duty to save rabbits from foxes that we had to save Jews from Nazis. Similarly, only about 1 in 4 zygotes survives to the live baby stage, even if there is no interference. In your (stated) view then the greatest human health problems are not cancer or heart disease, but such things as failure to implant and the biological mechanisms that cause an abnormal embryo to be expelled. Why aren't you calling for medical research funds to be diverted to these areas? Even very conservative Christians have no problem with the idea of brain death. How is this possible if having a brain is irrelevant to having human status?

There is no one to one correspondence between surviving zygotes and people, because at any time up to day 12 after conception an embryo can split to form identical twins or triplets. Two embryos that would normally form fraternal twins, no more closely related than any brothers or sisters, can be squeezed together and cooperate to form a single individual (google "tetragametic chimera"). A case was recently discovered in England when DNA testing appeared to show that a 50 year old woman could not be the mother of her two sons. The embryos can even be of different sexes, and chimeras can be formed in the lab between species too different to hybridise. What happens to the soul in these cases?
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 5:49:56 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
Snout, actually parasite fits:

one definition - MSN Encarta: Definition:

1. organism living on another: a plant or animal that lives on or in another, usually larger, host organism in a way that harms or is of no advantage to the host


From Biology on-line: parasite

(Science: biology) An organism which obtains food and shelter from another organism (for example giardia).

From Yahoo: Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

All of which are pretty much in agreement, and provide a good definition of the foetus. Of course if the part of the definition 'different organism' is omitted in the human case, and it being argued that the foetus is part of the host rather than a different organism, then we would have to look at abortion as being no more than akin to breast reduction for cosmetic purposes.

So, abortion is really just a form of cosmetic surgery? Then it should be allowed right up to the very minute of delivery, when it ceases being a parasite.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 9:42:08 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
Hamlet, I think you're trying to set up a straw man argument here. I doubt you sincerely believe that "parasite" or similar descriptors are appropriate to refer to an embryo or foetus. Nor do I. What is your point?
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 11:05:15 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
Snout, it is simple. Is the foetus a being, a parasite or an appendage?

In NSW there are laws that make it an offence to commit an act, such as in a car accident, or by criminal assault, that results in the death of a foetus, whether or not the mother is harmed, except in the course of a medical procedure.

Isn't this a rather dramatic double standard? Why should an action that results in the destruction of a foetus by a car crash on the way to an abortion clinic be an offense, when if the foetus arrives safely at the clinic it can simply be destroyed?

Either the unborn have value, or they don't.

Having said that, I agree that laws against abortion can be harmful. But I would have to say that no foetus that has the possibility of viability (and its getting early and earlier) should be aborted.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 11:32:22 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
I cant pretend to know the circumstances of every woman requiring an abortion but I could assertain that the decision is never taken lightly with the exception of a tiny minority. Obviously the tiny minority who do take the decision lightly should not have children anyway and ironically abortion is then the right decision.

Pro lifers may claim those children should be adopted or fostered. This is a commodification of children and is not motivated by the wish for the best welfare of the child.Foster children are often condemed to a life of crisis. Abortion too is often incredibly traumatic for both child and mother. The common problem of child abuse should be addressed long before abortion should be reviewed.

Many superstitious cults claim abortion is against the teachings of their gods. They should not impose their values on the rest of society. The vast majority of preganacies terminate naturally. If a supernatural being made the rules of the universe existed then is obvious abortion is more moral than old age.

Witch hunting doctors who perform abortion is nothing more than reactionary and smacks of Nazi Germany of the late 1930's.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 20 September 2006 11:47:41 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
Previously I wrote
"Abortion too is often incredibly traumatic for both child and mother"

What I meant to say was

"Adoption too is often incredibly traumatic for both child and mother."
Posted by West, Wednesday, 20 September 2006 5:02:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
West wrote:

"Abortion too is often incredibly traumatic for both child and mother"

What I meant to say was

"Adoption too is often incredibly traumatic for both child and mother."

That is so true, at least the foetus has a chance to recover from adoption......
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 20 September 2006 9:47:51 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
Numbat “You are the one condoning the killing of innocent babies just as the real fascist did during the time of Hitler”

No –

I am condoning nothing, I am saying – people are free to choose how their bodies will be used. That means Free of my condonement or criticism.

The Fascists are Tankard Reiss who would, like Hitler, demand to make the decision for other people, rather than respect them to make their own decision.

Oh and Hitler enacted laws which made abortion a criminal offense and upped the penalty, eventually to a death sentence for Aryan Women who dared disobey, sounds like those "fascists" were pretty seriously “Anti-abortion” to me.

When you know other people enough to know more about their circumstances, capabilities, capacities, desires, expectation and plans, then you will be in a position to make “abortion” / “no abortion” decisions for them.
Until that time, every anti-abortionist should just butt out and find their own real reason for being, instead of trying to micro-manage the affairs of complete strangers.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 21 September 2006 8:16:58 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
Hamlet, I think you’ve nailed the fundamental moral question when you propose that “Either the unborn have value, or they don't.”

The difficulty arises when you ask more specifically whether that value is that of a human person whose rights should be regarded as equal to those of any other person such as the woman who is carrying that pregnancy. To me it seems self evident that a freshly fertilized zygote has nothing like that status, but that a foetus in the moments just before birth is getting pretty damned close.

The problem is, at what point does that fully human value kick in? There is no black and white answer to this: the process of development from a single cell to a fully formed human is a gradual one. Some moral theologians argue that a zygote has this “personhood’ status from conception, citing genetic uniqueness as the decisive criterion. This makes no sense to me, as an identical twin is no less a human than a person whose genetic code is unique. Others propose some kind of “ensoulment” event at an arbitrarily chosen point in the pregnancy. It seems you choose “viability” as your criterion, although, as you say, this is becoming quite bendy with the development of medical technology. The most widely accepted critical point in our culture seems to be birth. In some other cultures, especially those with traditionally high rates of neonatal mortality, babies aren’t named, and ascribed personhood, until some weeks or months after birth.

Pro lifers often blur the distinction between a potential human and an actual one, often appending “unborn” (as in unborn baby, unborn child) to do so. The fact that an embryo or foetus is a potential child does not give it an actual child’s status. I am a potential corpse: I’d get pretty annoyed if people started treating me now according to my potential, rather than actual, status.

In short I’d say yes, a zygote, embryo or foetus does have value – but as a fully fledged human being, a person, no.
Posted by Snout, Thursday, 21 September 2006 9:20:30 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
Snout

the matter of life was also blurred by a NSW Court of Criminal Appeal decision in R v David John IBY [2005] NSWCCA 178, handed down in May 2005, in which the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed a District Court Judge's opinion that a baby is born alive if:

“[51] … a newborn baby is born alive or lives when it is fully extruded from its mother and is living by virtue of the functioning of its own organs with or without medical stimulus or assistance.
[52] The Court further finds that a newborn is living by virtue of the functioning of its own organs when it breathes with or without assistance or shows any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscle whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached and regardless of whether such function has been achieved by medical assistance or stimulus.”

the higher court continued

13 His Honour’s finding on the facts, set out above, was that there was both heartbeat and respiration, albeit that the respiration was assisted. On his Honour’s legal analysis, either of these matters would lead to the conclusion that the baby was born alive.

unquote

Consequently, it can be considered, at least under law in NSW, that any foetus that has a heartbeat, breathes or has brain activity outside the mother's body is alive, and therefore the death of that foetus through medical intervention must be considered as unlawful killing, at the least. Therefore the infamous Darwin baby that cried for 45 minutes after being 'aborted', is really a murder victim who could have been saved.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 21 September 2006 10:02:26 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
I have had 4 terminations. It hurts my mind,my body,my everything.I fell pregnant on these occasions whilst using both the pill and condoms. I have pancreatic cancer. Nothing works in my body except my reproductive organs apparently. I wanted to continue with all the pregnancies but my body would not allow this. I take countless medications to just keep existing. One termination was performed in a hospital. The gynie told me I should keep my legs together in the future. Nice advice. The seccond and third were in a well known CBD Sydney clinic. My partner was on his way to the counselling session with me when he was told to go to medicare and sort out the paperwork as it would make the admin lady's job easier. He was not counselled. He needed it as much as I. The next time at the same clinic we were referred to, in front of a packed waiting room as "repeat offenders". Yes, some clinics are good and some suck! Those that suck are driven by $$$$ those that don't, need to make money to survive but are driven,I believe, by compassion, not just for the women and foetus but by the man involved. Judge away people but out the bread head bastards for what they are. Thanks
Posted by jams75, Friday, 13 October 2006 2:18:53 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
Jams75 “I have had 4 terminations. …. I wanted to continue with all the pregnancies but my body would not allow this.”

Jams75 you have my sincerest sympathy and support for exercising your right to make the hard and painful decisions which you have made.

If the meddlers were faced with the realities of your life, they might learn to meddle less.

As I wrote previously

“When you (the meddlers) know other people enough to know more about their circumstances, capabilities, capacities, desires, expectation and plans, then you will be in a position to make “abortion” / “no abortion” decisions for them.”

Best wishes for the best life you can muster, for as long as you can muster.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 15 October 2006 7:19:01 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
Jams 75 is proof that nobody can claim to know every circumstance that leads to abortion. Therefore nobody has the right to Judge the woman who decides to have an abortion.
For good or bad, what ever the reason a person has a procedure they are not the property of those who look down upon them and cast judgement upon them. Quite simply it is nobodies business other than those facing the prospect of abortion. I cannot believe for an instant that anti abortionists sincerely care about the unborn child. If they truly cared about unborn children they would have been pro-active in repairing climate change and have not supported political parties who spread war or follow beliefs that exclude non believers. The anti abortionist is the supreme hypocrite, the false accuser.

All the best to you in the future Jams 75. I sincerely hope things turn around for you.
Posted by West, Monday, 16 October 2006 9:28:37 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
First of all, I'd like to thank you Melinda for all you hard work and dedication to womens health.
I fail to understand why we want the best medical care in every area of our life, yet when it comes to abortion, so many of us are willing to turn a blind eye to what is truely happening.
Recently a woman who gave birth to a large baby sued her doctor for not informing her. Yet we are willing to put up with abortionists who leave horrendous injuries. If a routine D&C was performed after a miscarriage and the doctor caused the same injuries, imagine the uproar.
Legalising abortion was supposed to stop backyard operators, but I can't see that anything has changed. I suggest we all get behind and support people like Melinda who aren't afraid to expose the truth.
Posted by broome, Thursday, 19 October 2006 7:19:42 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
All Melinda exposes is political bias.
Posted by West, Friday, 20 October 2006 12:27:55 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
Pro lifers are using the issue of women's health in order to impose their particular religious beliefs about abortion, contraception and women's role. The injuries that Melinda described: "severed fallopian tube, a fist-sized hole in her uterus needing 200 stitches, a torn bowel and bladder and missed baby body parts" imply that the doctor had no anatomical knowledge whatsoever and that he/she used a whipper snipper to perform the abortion. Perhaps Melinda read the story of this young African girl's injuries after an illegal abortion: http://www.newstatesman.com/200701290031
Posted by Maryan, Tuesday, 21 August 2007 6:53:48 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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