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 > Risking women's health, breaching Australia's laws > Comments

Risking women's health, breaching Australia's laws : Comments

By Jocelynne Scutt, published 11/5/2007

Confidentiality and privacy laws are little protection against the determined anti-abortionist.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Wow! what a hornets nest this debate over pregnancy counselling has created?

"False and misleading information will hardly assist these women, nor protect them from mental harm.

In support of the Bill, Despoja affirmed the “urgent need for legislation to outlaw "misleading and deceptive advertising’"

Now don't get me wrong because I support truth in advertising and it is true false and misleading and information does not assist anyone.

But how come? This seems to only be really important in the context of pregnancy and not to cover a much broader range of subjects where we have been deliberately mislead by false information.

There is probably not a single person in this forum who has not heard of the 2nd shift.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/070509

"But it turned out that Hochschild's conclusions were flawed. First, her data about men's contribution to household chores was 25 years old. Then she interviewed mostly part-time women — some of them married to men who clocked 60 hours a week. Apparently Hochschild expected these men to come home and do the laundry between shifts, all in the name of gender equality.

So when other researchers tried to replicate Hochschild's results, they found the numbers didn't come out right. Their solution? Cook the books!

Case in point was the United Nations report called Human Development 1995, which purported to show that women worked more hours than men. But Farrell did a little gumshoe work and discovered some behind-the-scenes statistical shenanigans.

When the UN bureaucrats found that men often worked more hours, they went back to the original researchers and asked them to "amend" their study to include the estimated time that women devoted to "basket making, weaving, knitting, sewing," and similar unpaid work — yes, really!

But they didn't bother to find out about unpaid work by men."

Yes we get lied too and manipulated all the time by special interest groups.

So who is really telling the truth?
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 11 May 2007 9:47:14 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
One has to be morally bankrupted not to see that killing the unborn is terribly wrong. This is not a women's issue, it is a human rights issue. How anyone could judge Mr Bush on his Iraq policy and then condone abortion is straight out hyprocrisy! Animals have more rights on this planet than unborn babies.
Posted by runner, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:40:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner I guess you have never fallen pregnant as the result of a rape.
Posted by 1340, Friday, 11 May 2007 12:30:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That article displays the clear Lack of Morals that the Feotoscide movement realy posses.

How they can even attempt to equate media with health of women, and the right to kill the unborn is beyond beleif. Anybody that gets caught up in the misanthropic, pro-death movement is really missing the point of their very own existance.

An existance which -by the way- was allowed by the parent of the misanthropist/killer. What perhaps might the parents of these so called women have done, if they knew by genetic profiling, that their daughters would turn out to be baby killers?

Anyway, perhaps we should do what has been done in the past, and do what Japan has just started doing -albeit through the Church- and make a Baby-deposit institution. Somewhere where the bearers of babys who have been denied the right to kill, can dump the new borns where they will be safe from the ravages of radical feminists and lesbians.

That way, the babies can also have a later oppurtunity to take it all up with the carcass bearers.
Posted by Gadget, Friday, 11 May 2007 1:13:16 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
JamesH---what exactly is a special interest group---one that you dont like perhaps?
That kind of framed statement is used by those on the "right" a lot. We ALL belong to multiple special interest groups.

And I wonder what "truth in advertising" could possibly be?

I see that the said Roberts has Russ Limbaugh as a fan---as thought that is a character reference.

Renew America (RA). Beware of any large group that presumes it knows what is best for everyone---and that is exactly what does. At times in the past I have read some of their stuff, especially the essays by Keyes. He has some good things to say no doubt. But RA is one of these outfits that believes in American exceptionalism and the doctrine of manifest destiny. Put in another way, it (America) is part of "gods" plan for the entire world and that it has "gods" mandate to bring "jesus" and "civilization" to everyone else---even via imperial invasion.

Never mind that the USA was founded on religious, political, and economic lies. Massive grand theft, genocide, and slavery. Slavery is also a particularly brutal kind of theft and also genocide. These dark moments in USA have never been truly acknowledged by the ruling whiteys, including, and especially, by outfits such as RA.

I find the argument in Columbus and Other Cannibals quite convincing.
http://nas.ucdavis.edu/Forbes/CANNIBALS/html

The book I referred to yesterday by Morris Berman is an extended description of this cannibal "culture".
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 11 May 2007 4:38:26 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 believe that if women leave their pregnancy late enough that abortion should not be possible. It is very chilling to hear grown women advocate the murdering of babies and defend their 'right' to do so. While I would not ban the practice, murdering your child should be frowned upon.
Posted by Steel, Friday, 11 May 2007 4:49:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How anyone could judge Mr Bush on his Iraq policy and then condone abortion is straight out hyprocrisy!"
No it's not. However if you believe it to be so, I expect you to rabidly condemn the Iraq War and call for it's end. You will also call the Howard government hypocrites for supporting the Iraq War, while opposing abortion.
Posted by Steel, Friday, 11 May 2007 4:53:31 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
1430, neither have approximately 99.30% of abortion users...

Truth in advertising means showing women ultrasounds of their foetus/embryo before they choose to end his or her life at the altars of convenience and material prosperity.
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Friday, 11 May 2007 7:23:33 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
YngNLuvnIt

You hit it in one. 99% plus of abortions have nothing to do with rape.
Posted by runner, Friday, 11 May 2007 8:52:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Jocelyn Scutt. This is more about control of women's fertility than anything else. Why should a vocal minority group thrust its moral view of the world upon the 70% of the Australian population that don't agree with them.

I think its more wicked to bring an unwanted child into the world. As abortion before 12 weeks is safer for the mother than a full term normal pregnancy I object to my taxes being used to pay for a "counselling service" that tells lies and half truths.

With the introduction of the Access Card there is no guarantee that the lists of Australian women who have had abortions won't find their way to "Right to Lifers" so I am most unimpressed by a special item for abortion procedures.

Australian women are damned if they do have childen by pressures to work in child "unfriendly" work places in jobs that have no flexibility for school age children. If they put their children in child care they receive the rebate 18 months after they have spent the money.

Its now quite acceptable for government ministers to denigrate women who don't have children and neither side of politics bothered to provide election sweeteners for the increasing number of Australians who are too poor or insecure in their workplace to embark on parenthood and mortgage.

Yes I have made an implied judgement that rearing children while renting is irresponsible or "unAustralian".
Posted by billie, Friday, 11 May 2007 9:15:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst I agreed with Jocelynne's main points I found myself annoyed by aspects of her wording and focus.

I found it easy to rephrase the comment

"It is highly unlikely that the federal government would provide funding to services giving out false and misleading information about men’s health care and services."

as "It is highly unlikely that the federal government would provide funding to services giving out information about men’s health care and services."

- there may be a slight exageration there but I'm not sure.

Given Jocelynne's focus on discrimination perhaps she would care to comment on the relative spending on health services specifically helping women vs those specifically helping men.

Or maybe some of her approach focussed on making people feel hard done by rather than a serious discussion about discrmination.

But the issues around government providing funding to services which engage in misleading tactics is still valid (and I'm not just talking about the funds paid to political parties either).

I started a thread earlier in the General Discussion area regarding what I perceive as a conflict of interest for the federal health minister over the abortion issue and recent comments by the pope. Comment welcome - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=616

Given that the Federal Health Minister has control over a lot of the issues the author raises and given the threat of excommunication made by the pope against politicians it would appear that Tony Abbott's position is compromised while he remains a practicing Catholic.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 11 May 2007 9:21:08 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
RObert you raise the point of religion and the Minister for Health. This highlights the basis of the debate from the anti abortionists’ i.e. that health issues for women, 81% of Australian women, are being dictated by religion. And what is religion? Religion for me is an antiquated interpretation of the world that needs to be relegated to the dustbin. That the health policy for over 50% of Australia's population should be based on religious grounds is utterly unacceptable. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Health financially supporting only those counselling services that provide the religious options and not all options is reminiscent of the likes of the repressive regime under the dictator Chechescu. Thank you Dr Scutt for writing such a wonderful article.
Posted by think, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:02:02 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
It never ceases to amaze me how irrational discussions on abortion get on both sides. People say some really over-the-top things. People on both sides are sometimes scary and aggressive.

I understand why passions run high. Two sacred cows are considered to be at stake here: the value of human life or women's rights. Which issue is it? For many of course the question is very personal.

Surely we can't work this issue out by shouting in each others' faces. We must listen to both sides of the argument (the sensible voices, that is) and ask ourselves which issue we consider to be really at stake here.

I have done this, I believe. As a strong believer in women's rights I oppose all attempts to force, mislead, deny or violate them. But I also find it difficult to accept that we can decide when a human life is valid and when it is not. The development of a lifeform is on a continum. The decision about when it becomes human is largely philosophical. Science chooses where to draw that line. Many are happy to accept that. But what's at stake if they're wrong? Human life obviously trumps women's rights.

I do think it's wrong to accuse a woman of having murderous intentions. But I also think it's misleading to deny that abortion is killing something. It's a huge responsibility to make a decision about whether that thing is human or not.

It's an important issue to consider, a hard matter to decide on. Science has things to say on both sides of the argument. Such muddy water on such a crucial issue. No wonder there is conflict. Both sides believe that what is at stake is so important that we can't give up the fight. Little wonder policy-makers end up in a muddle
Posted by kt mcf, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:56:27 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
kt mcf, what is illogical about pointing out how devious government is, when health care counselling money, is given only to those agencies that promote the religious point of view? And yet this point of view is deceitfully undeclared. There is NO confusion by those male politicians just a determination to get their way by foul means.
Posted by think, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:24:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I hope that there are many women on this forum and not too many men. Every single woman with an unplanned pregnancy has no choice at all in making a decision on an unplanned pregnancy and living with the consequences. This does not apply to men.

One poster made a comment: it is about the rights of an unborn human's life vs women's rights. How simplistic is that.

Firstly, a foetus is a 'potential' human. Many things can happen before birth before this foetus is an independent human.

Secondly, it is not just women's rights, it is also her rights to life. Contrary to rose coloured glasses, pregnancy is not totally without risks. So, to demand a woman continues with an unwanted pregnancy is to insist she has no choice in taking on the risks of pregnancy. Would all men accept this demand if this was placed on them?

During birth, if it comes to a choice to save a woman's life or the baby's life, which do you think should be saved? The answer you give to that will determine what value you give to a woman's life. Either way, why should the one have precedence over the other?

If a pregnant woman looses her unborn baby through assault or negligence, why isn't the perpetrator charged with murder or manslaughter? If we are going to talk of murdering babies, let's start here.

And re rape. How could any of you possibly know the percentages of terminated pregnancies because of rape?

I cannot understand why we there are people implying abortions should be banned in Australia. It is not a compulsory option you know.

An unplanned pregnancy is the result of sex with failed or non-existent contraception. Nothing more and nothing less. We should be more concerned that there seems to be such poor understanding at how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy in the first place.
Posted by yvonne, Saturday, 12 May 2007 1:49:56 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
"I hope that there are many women on this forum and not too many men. Every single woman with an unplanned pregnancy has no choice at all in making a decision on an unplanned pregnancy and living with the consequences. This does not apply to men." yvonne

What a sexist statement, Yvonne.

Pregnancy planned or unplanned has consequences for the potential alleged father as well.

So a pregnant woman's choice will affect not only her own life, but potentially the lives of up to three individuals.

On one hand male partners are now expected to partake and be supportive throughout pregnancy and child birth as well as taking a greater share and responsibility in child care.

I guess we are only a convenient tool which can be discarded when fathers become an inconvenience.

"An unplanned pregnancy is the result of sex with failed or non-existent contraception. Nothing more and nothing less. We should be more concerned that there seems to be such poor understanding at how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy in the first place."

Research shows that up to 40% of women will lie about birth control in order to get pregnant! So I don't think these women have a poor understanding of birth control. Their motives are less than honourable
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 12 May 2007 6:51:16 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
YVONNE said:

Every single woman with an unplanned pregnancy has no choice at all in making a decision on an unplanned pregnancy and living with the consequences. This does not apply to men.

Really?

Hmmm.. I think just like a man can walk away from a girl he has impregnated, a girl can walk away from the child once she has given birth to it. They both tango'd and a child was the result.
The only difference I can see is the chronology. He can take a walk 9months earlier than she.
But lets not forget, a child has genese from both man and woman. Why is it so easy for a woman to assume or project the idea that a man has no feeling for offspring?

JamesH has it pretty right in suggesting that 'special interest' groups are very careful in what information they present.

Pro Abortion campaigners will try to tug on our heart strings with "Children conceived as a result of rape" etc...

Pro lifers will possibly show examples of brilliant children saved from abortion.

Personally, I don't think we should divide things into 'womens' health and 'mens' health... sounds too much like 'us/them'. Why not 'community health'?
Why not recognize that we are all in this together, and seek solutions which encompass the whole of the community ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 12 May 2007 7:23:15 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
Australia is a secular state, no religion has any precedence over any other in our law. Large portions of our population do not have moral or religious strictures against abortion being available. Large portions of our population are clearly more worried about bringing a child into the world they can't afford rather than committing a mortal sin by having an abortion. I, for example, know the term mortal sin but not what it means and as a protestant not interested in learning either.

A first trimester abortion is less injurious to a woman's health than a full term normal pregnancy

I have been told by an ex-minister that women who placed babies for adoption always regret it but very few women regret having an abortion.

Then why should tax payers pay for a counselling service that
1. tells lies, like abortion will lead to increased rates of breast cancer, when in fact full term pregancy is a greater risk factor.
2. records all calls, "counselling" implies confidentiality
3. mark the woman's health record with an abortion item number
4. not actually inform women of all their options because the service doesn't actually mention abortion as an option
5. pushes the agenda of a vocal minority of the population

This counselling service wastes women's time when they want to have an abortion, in effect wiping out one of their choices. Clearly many of the potential fathers are quite happy by the decision to abort. We haven't heard any poster saying "my girlfriend got pregnant and I am still sore that she had an abortion. The abortion ruined my life."
We have heard many women say over the years that the unwanted baby changed my life and in some cases their lives were ruined especially in Ireland where fallen women were incarcerated in the Magdalene laundries and held there for 20 years until they were broken old crones.
Posted by billie, Saturday, 12 May 2007 10:51:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article driving at 'women can terminate the life of unborn child-and never want to be identified'...why...if the reason to terminate is so strong, considering the life of good human ceased on it, then stand and say so and it was your choice...why wanting this cloak and dagger stuff with it...

The problem that stewed to this crisis point of killing unborn babies is 'law'...and where the laws/court repeatedly fails, the ordinary common person of the public has/must correct...

Attorney-general for state of queensland(ex rel kerr) v T (1983) 8 fam LR 875 in high court:
Father wanted an injunction to prevent the woman from aborting his child from an 'one-off' casual sex. High court said...essentially 'bugger-off'...'a foetus has no right of its own'...so guess what happened...yep...

In the marriage of F (1989) 13 fam LR 189 family court...separation and wife 13 weeks pregnant and father wanted injunction to prevent women terminating his child. family court said...'The foetus has no right at common law which could be enforced on its behalf by H(father)'...at 'commonlaw' meaning developed over 1000 years of english legal practice...how long has this sisterhood organized power for unbalanced benefit been going on under the radar?...read the brutality in these cases for your self. Most court libraries have the cases and more...

These fathers spent a lot of money to protect their unborn child...how many of us whom feel the same can afford this...

It is becoming quite clear that what is happening now with unborn children whom have absolutely no legal rights is intolerable to ordinary decent person of society...

Lot of things must happen...I think the first is law must be passed that before termination is carried out a legal offer must be made to the real father-'absolutely terminating all rights of women to child and father taking over full rights and care of his child'...if father disagrees then only termination can proceed...otherwise child lives...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Saturday, 12 May 2007 12:21:00 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
JamesH

"Research shows that up to 40% of women will lie about birth control in order to get pregnant."

So JamesH, why would women seek an abortion if they wanted to get pregnant?

Are you suggesting that only women are to blame for unplanned pregnancies when you claim that "their motives are less than honourable?"

To all those males who simply want to "get their end away," I advise:

"Take the initiative, when indulging in casual sex and use condoms at all times. After all, it is not you who has to deal with the medical and psychological consequences of abortion or the main responsibility of child rearing, whilst you wander off in search of your next fleeting conquest!"

During the eighties, my research revealed 73% of estranged fathers failed to adequately support their children.

Now, better enforced regulations to ensure more shared monetary responsibility, has propagated an army of whinging Dads, who complain of the cost of supporting the product of their casual or long-term liaisons.

Women in need, hardly require counselling services which have been manipulated by our "honourable" leaders who happen to be the male species, desirous of combining archaic, hypocritical religious dogma with politics which will be to the detriment of this "democratic" nation.
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 12 May 2007 4:07:10 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
Thanks Dickie.

James made me choke with '40% women lying about birth control'. I advise James to keep his zipper firmly closed and pants on. That way he will not ever be deceived by a conniving dishonourable woman who is desperate for his baby. I wonder the % of men who say 'I love you and you can trust me' just to high tail it after the novelty wears off?

Men find casual, non committal sex without any need for intimacy or love much easier than women. Most women still need to be 'in love' for a sexual relationship and have the view, that sex means a commitment of sorts.

-So I don't think these women have a poor understanding of birth control- James

Dear James, is it a woman who needs to be the one with understanding of birth control? What about yours and all other men? Do all you men realize that if every man always personally took responsibility for birth control, unplanned pregnancy would practically disappear? Why is the main responsible one always seen as the woman? Oh, I forgot, she’s the one who gets pregnant and has to deal with it.

Up to now it is still women only who get pregnant and therefore have NO choice dealing with the consequences. Men can stay or disappear, they are NOT pregnant. This is not to deny the majority of men who are responsible and do care deeply about their children. But, please, do not pretend there are not many men breathing a sigh of relief that they’ve been let of the financial hook when a woman terminates an unplanned pregnancy.

Why is there such a concerted effort to make abortion all about selfish uncaring women, probably men hating feminists, ready to kill babies after luring honourable men into wanton sex, who must be punished, or at least marked in some public way? It is sickening, it is hateful.

An unwanted pregnancy is about birth control. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the EQUAL responsibility for both.
Posted by yvonne, Saturday, 12 May 2007 7:42:26 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
There are a few posts here that try to muddy the waters between rational choice and baby killing.

Clearly, by any definition, abortion is baby killing.

When an abortion is 'chosen', it is not some weed in the garden being plucked, it is a human child.

When it is 'terminated', it is murdered.

When it is the "womens righs" mantra, it is their choice to do murder.

Whe they assert womens rights such as these are legislatable, it is an attempt to legalise infant murder

When the feotoscidists declare it a health matter, it is merely an 'it or me' survivalist perspective.

When 'termination' is done, it is not moralistic anywhere or at any point.

When Gender Kits disclose the sex of the unborn, and murder is the logical outcome, Hitleresque machinations creep into human reproduction. Fascist eugenics is the result of the Feminnazi movement.
Posted by Gadget, Saturday, 12 May 2007 7:49:24 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
"Clearly, by any definition, abortion is baby killing.
When an abortion is 'chosen', it is not some weed in the garden being plucked, it is a human child.
When it is 'terminated', it is murdered."

Gadget, all you are doing is trying to use semantics as a form
of emotional rhetoric. Check your definitions!

A zygote for instance, is neither yet a foetus or a baby or
a person, it simply has potential, as do the 400 eggs that
women flush down the toilet during their lifetimes, or the
billions of sperms, where males do the same. As Darwin noted,
far more potential beings of any species will be created, then
can ever survive.

A foetus is not a child, again check your definitions.

Murdered? Did you murder that fly you swatted? Did you
murder those sperms you flushed down the toilet, or that
egg?

Semantics is not going to make your case Gadget.

Get real.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 12 May 2007 9:10:19 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
I don't think it's right that a woman should be deceived when being given counselling about her pregnancy. I don't think religious reasons should be pushed on her if she is not religious.

Religion is relevant for some. But don't we all value human life? And do we normally measure the value of a human on whether they're wanted or not?

If the life of a foetus was not important why would women grieve when they have a natural miscarriage? Why are we saddened or appalled when an accident or act of violence causes a miscarriage? (and yes, in some cases of violence, criminal charges have been laid).

I cannot understand why people are prepared to suspend their normal concern for the sacredness of human life. I can understand it when the woman's life is genuinely at risk or in cases of rape or possibly with young girls with immature bodies. But I think it's dishonest to say one is having an abortion for medical reasons when the true reasons are to do with job, finances, the general pregnancy health risks, housing or even feelings. If ourselves or a close family suddenly falls ill or has an accident, we are prepared to forego these things. We have to. What choice do we have?

Accidents happen. Sexually active adults should be responsible for their actions. Sometimes something unexpected happens. Most of the time we can't just eliminate the problem. And if a human life is in question, we never do unless it is the last resort (eg switching off a life-support machine).

Surely the great number of abortions in Australia are not because of a last resort situation. We believe we have the right to choose something that we would never normally choose.
Because of this we do mental gymnastics to justify our actions by convincing ourselves that something we would normally treasure (a pregnancy) is nothing much at all.
Posted by kt mcf, Saturday, 12 May 2007 11:25:32 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
kt mcf - "that something we would normally treasure (a pregnancy)" - its wrong to assume that women would normally treasure something like a pregnancy .

If you look at most women in Australia, they are fertile from age of 15 to 45 but really only want to have 1, 2 or 3 children sometime in their 20s or 30s. The exceptions are the members of minority religious sects that expect their women to marry at 16 and have as many children as possible.

Many children of the baby boom grew up in families where the third and subsequent children were financial burdens their parents could ill afford to feed or clothe. Many children grew up with the sentences ringing in their ears like "I kept having babies until I had a son" or "If I hadn't got pregnant . . . . " or "I wanted to . . . . . "
Posted by billie, Sunday, 13 May 2007 7:56:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"HALF of all women would lie to their husbands or partners to keep their relationship going if they became pregnant by another man, a survey said today.

Figures showed one woman in two would not tell her man that the baby she was carrying was not his - if she wanted to stay with him.

They also said four out of ten (42%) would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, in spite of the wishes of their partner."
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/139/139613_women_lie_cheat_and_steal.html?ref=emtaf&archive=archive

Dickie Yvonne, please note it says in spite of the wishes of their partner!

There is nothing said about casual sex. It is just that you two are trying to flame.

Yvonne, I understand that the male pill maybe available in the near future, which will broaden the options for men.

Oh by the way there is another study which also supports this one, which I think was published in the NYT.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 13 May 2007 8:00:41 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
Dickie, "During the eighties, my research revealed 73% of estranged fathers failed to adequately support their children.

Now, better enforced regulations to ensure more shared monetary responsibility, has propagated an army of whinging Dads, who complain of the cost of supporting the product of their casual or long-term liaisons."

Clearly you have little real knowledge of how C$A works in practice.
There is nothing there about shared monetary responsibility. Nothing there about parents who want a greater role in shared parenting responsibility and who have been robbed of that by the scheming of a former partner. Shift it to a starting place of shared across the board responsibility and privilige and we might get somewhere.

What we have now is a fatally flawed and injust system which perpetuates conflict between parents and does harm to all concerned.

For the record I've got full time care of my son (at my ex's request) and pay all the expenses other than for the occasional night my son has with his mum.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 13 May 2007 9:28:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yabby,

you are clutching at straws, and are also weird.

You say an unborn child is a 'zygot'; this is some sort of alien term is it not? A semantic dodge that suits the immorality of baby killers and you is it not?

You support a very bleak minority there yabby, and one dare i say, deep in a hole at the moment. For two reasons. 1) because the leader of one of the most populist movements on earth -Christian Catholicism-, the Pope has deemed Abortion as wrong, and has outlawed it from the moment of conception. On this point yabbies, your clutching claws are reaching out to a vastly outnumbered sector of society. 2) You are beaten in national Legislation, which you dont like, because as a supporter of weird outcasts, killers, fascists, and misandrist hate movements, you have lost an argument which you would have aerlier in time, won.

But alas, over time, the piddly arguments put up by the likes of yuo have been proven unfounded and deadly. Both statiscally, and socially.

Indeed, even the scientific evidence which used to support Abortionists, has evolved, and now tells us that monkeys have more genetic variation, than does a human. Just one more nail in the coffin of evolution proving the human species is unique.

yabbies are genetically unique. So are baby killers; take Stalin or Mao for example.
Posted by Gadget, Sunday, 13 May 2007 1:45:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gadget stop being ridiculous and demonising the actions of over 70% of Australian women who have had an abortion. The simple fact is that if you made abortion illegal or difficult to obtain then you will drive desperate women to backyard abortionists and we would return to the situation where Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney would have a 20 bed ward for botched abortions that sent 1 woman to the mortuary each week. Well actually double that because the population has doubled.

I notice that the anti-abortion posters are predominantly male.
Posted by billie, Sunday, 13 May 2007 6:41:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL Gadget, if you don't yet know the difference between a zygote,
foetus, baby and a child, I suggest that you buy a dictionary or
use an online one. Clearly there is a gap in your education showing :)

No minority Gadget, but the vast majority is what I support. Abortion
in the first tremester is now just about "standard" in the Western
world. Surveys taken in various countries, including Catholic Italy,
show that over 80%-90% of people agree with me.

Surveys taken amongst US Catholics show that 80% of them, as well
as 50% of their priests, disagree with the Vatican stance on
abortion and birth control, so the old papa and you are in the
very small minority :)

In fact the last survey I saw, showed that when it came to bums
on seats, the Catholic religion was the fastest declining religion
in Australia and I'd hazard a guess to say that abortion and family
planning are one of the main reasons for that. Portugal, Brazil,
Mexico, are all countries finally agreeing that it is pointless for
so many women to die from backyard abortions, its time that it
became a health issue.

I remind you that there is no such thing as objective morality.
You are welcome to go along with the line in the sand that the
church has drawn. Others agree to disagree and their viewpoints
are as valid as those of the pope.

The thing is, nobody is forcing anyone to have an abortion, its a
matter of individuals having the right to make decisions about their
own lives. If the Taliban tried to force you to live by their
beliefs, you might just be majorly pissed off. Well thats how
some of us feel, when the churches here try to enforce their dogma
on the rest of us.

Lastly, every species is unique, Gadget. Humans are just another species that is unique, nothing unique about that!
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 13 May 2007 8:08:03 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
JamesH advises that "a male pill may be available in the near future which will broaden the options for men."

Well JamesH, statistics reveal that men are notorious for failing to use condoms so how on earth does one ensure the male has swallowed his pill?

Reversible vasectomies are also available, however it would be interesting to learn how few males have "succumbed" to this simple procedure. "Leave that to the women," they declare!

Women have for too long compromised their own health by ingesting the now suspected carcinogenic contraceptive pill for decades, inserting all sorts of contraceptive contraptions, often resulting in septacaemias and infertility and it is they who must endure the physical traumas of miscarriages.

And yet the army of male whingers is expanding! Give the girls a break, guys! It's catch up time!

It's reported that some 70% of all married men cheat on their wives. The reasons were:

1. Sexual addiction
2. More sex
3. More sexual variety
4. Opportunistic sex

So, while numbers of women cheating are on the increase, it appears the overriding factor for a male to cheat, is sex, sex and more sex!

Sex was not the reason women gave for cheating on their husbands.

However, the vital question to ask is "why are women reduced to having abortions?"

Is it because the majority of pregnant women have been abandoned by the male?

When we collate sufficient data on this, we may then move forward to finding solutions to reducing the number of abortions. God botherers, offering celestial counsel, need not apply!
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 13 May 2007 8:30:51 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
Dickie, yet more blaming men for everything. Are you trying to gives JamesH ammunition?

"It's reported that some 70% of all married men cheat on their wives."
Reported by who? Just who are they cheating with? If the figure is true that would suggest that a substantial proportion of the population don't want to be monogamous. Would it be fair for them to say "My body, my choice"?

"Reversible vasectomies are also available, however it would be interesting to learn how few males have "succumbed" to this simple procedure." - how simple and how widely publicised are they? I've heard almost nothing about them other than the suggestion that they may not be reliably reversable or simple.

I agree that more solid evidence into the reasons terminations are sought would be helpfull. I'm not sure how that data can be gathered impartially (those with the opportunity to gather the data are almost all likely to have vested interests in the types of results obtained).

The real issue being discussed here is the abuse of systems put in place to help people by those trying to impose the consequences of their own religious beliefs on others.

A bit less blaming men and some focus on that issue might help.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 13 May 2007 9:33:42 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
Dickie, men dislike condoms for much the same reasons as you girls
dislike showering in your raincoats, ie. it ruins the experience.

Responsibility for pregnancy is a 50:50 thing, not a 70:30
thing.

Yup, males can have the snip, so can females.

Perhaps once she's popped out 2-3 kids, the snip is an option
for her. Sensible males, who don't want a tribe of kids,
might be wise to ignore those females who insist on playing
russian roulette and stick to chatting up females who understand
these things :)
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 13 May 2007 10:25:40 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
Gee Yabby

Thanks so much for supporting my observations - particularly the one on condoms.

Forgetting to "travel" with condoms, where there is a risk of uncertainty, is also playing Russian roulette, is it not?

But of course, as you correctly advised, wisdom and enhanced sensations make poor bedfellows and wisdom "ruins the experience."

Never mind that JamesH has advised that females lie and are less than honourable!

So Yabby, you may have advised your teenage son not to use condoms, however, I advised mine that using condoms was essential, particularly if he didn't want to support a child for the next twenty years or become complicit in a pregnancy termination.

That advice worked and thankfully, I discovered condoms in his wardrobe shortly after!
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 13 May 2007 11:38:50 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
To some of you anti abortionists, What is your attitude to single mothers in society? Do you have a bit of a moralistic, holier than thou or self righteous attitude towards them. If so, how does that stack up with your anti abortion stand? Shouldnt you be full of praise for single mothers who didnt abort their babies?

I'm not saying I'm particularly fond of the idea of abortion but it's hypocritical for society to condem a woman for having an abortion and on the other hand look down on women who accidently fall pregnant or who have what's considered to be too many children in todays society.
Posted by sharkfin, Monday, 14 May 2007 12:11:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It's reported that some 70% of all married men cheat on their wives."

Dickie where is the research or did you just make it up?

Agony aunt columns make for some interesting reading, particularly where a woman wants to stop taking birth control without telling her partner.

I don't know what you would call it where one person in a relationship conveniently forgets to tell the other person that they stopped taking contraceptive measures.

As too reversible vasectomies. This requires micro surgery with no guarantee of sucess, it is not covered by medicare and costs between $5,000- $10,000 for the procedure. Whilst vasectomies are a simpler procedure, it is not without risks and for some men testicular pain is an ongoing issue.

To quote one man, "sex becomes an exercise in pain managment!"
http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=40

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlight/2001-03-08-anderson-vasectomy-life.htm

and before you hit the ROOF, I am not suggesting that men do not have vasectomies. Like all medical procedures they should be 'fully informed'.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 14 May 2007 9:53:13 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
Good article Jocelynne. I was dismayed when I heard that Tony Abbott was offering a counselling service for women - with his background and beliefs what else could it be but scuttlebutt? Your article clearly shows it as such. Well done.
Posted by arcticdog, Monday, 14 May 2007 12:28:31 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
I heard that in the US, 90% of all pregnant mothers abort if they're told their child will have down syndrome. Regardless of whether they were previously prolife or not. So I guess their strong moral convictions aren't set in stone after all.
Posted by spendocrat, Monday, 14 May 2007 1:13:33 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
Well, at least some are still human, and can inject some humor here.

I am not sure if yabby is being disuaded, but i hope the argument is, at least. I personally abhor the use of statistics from other countries used to support minority outcries here, as they are applied to Australia. It introduces primary flaws from the outset, and all arguments based on flawed statistics/use are fundamentally irrelevant in context.

I want to do a Practical Demonstration here about the implications of a-moral and immoral abortion. I dont mean to be rude and crude.

Consider this:-

When 1 is asleep, 1 is unconcious, inert, un-productive, incapable of anything, essentially completely vulnerable, unthinking, unloving, useless and consuming of valuable nutritution and oxygen. 1 is a thoughtless, meaningless blob of blubber and bones, a mass that moves very little, has no higher consciuos for period of time (8 hrs), will never be capable of virtually any concious act (except for certain phenomena), and cannot be spoken to, argued with or guided in any way, 1 sees nothing, perceives nothing, and recognises nothing (with scientific and specific exception).

Thus, 1 is a virtual zygote for a period of time; and generally speaking, for one-third of 1's life.

Now, if #2 were to enter into the sleeping room of 1 with a big pair of bolt cutters, and began to dismember 1, starting from the neck, 1 would be capable of nothing -no defence, no protest. By the time #2 get to the toes of 1, there would be no argument, and no evidence of conscious life having existed (#1 subject was rendered brain dead before sleep).

So, the question for the misandrist, misanthropic pro-baby killers is this: if you were 1, would it have been Murder? And if so, where is the justification with relation to feotoscide/zygotescide?

And to add further insult to the misandrist, misanthropic baby killer movement is this question: If #2 was spotted killing cats, there would be more human outcry over that, than if #2 were a practicing abortionist.

Are these postulations correct?
Posted by Gadget, Monday, 14 May 2007 1:22:30 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
Yabby "Dickie, men dislike condoms for much the same reasons as you girls dislike showering in your raincoats, ie. it ruins the experience."

Time to buy a better brand.

They do alter the experience and some women don't like them much either but there are some benefits. Decreasing the sensitivity might help things last a bit longer which has some benefits for all concerned. Nasty diseases ruin the experience - not everybody knows or is upfront about what they have. Nor is everybody upfront about their history. C$A ruins the experience big time especially if end up with the bills but not the kids.

Responsibility should be shared but each of us also needs to consider the risks we take and deal with it. At the moment condoms or abstenance are the most viable options open to men, if any doubt exists about the likely consequence then use one of them (using both at once would be overkill).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 14 May 2007 1:57:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gadget, no, your postulations are wrong, you miss the point, but
that does not surprise me :) So I'll explain it to you.

What makes a person, is the fact that they have a human brain.
Change the heart, lungs, kidneys, whatever, doesent matter.
No human brain = no person.

A person asleep, might not be aware, that does not mean that they
don't have a human brain. Their senses are still operating. Note
how a mother will wake up with the slightest cry of her baby.
etc. People dream, lots going on in that brain, that you are not
aware of. The slightest noise, its ready to go. If you came into
my room and tried to dismember me lol, you might be shocked as to
how capable I was :)

A zygote has potential, but its not yet a person. But then all those
400 eggs that most women shed have potential. Reality prevails, all could
be cute babies, but we can't keep them all. It should be a woman's
choice as to how many children she intends to raise and feed.

As a zygote is not yet a person, it doesent yet have a human brain,
it cannot think or suffer. Its still a being, but then so is the egg
or the sperm, they are all beings. A piece of steel has potential
to become a motor car. Its not yet a motor car, it just has potential,
given the correct circumstances.

As to statistics, all surveys I have seen taken in Australia are
overwhelmingly pro choice. In WA, when it was a political issue,
it was around 85% pro choice, a few % with no opinion and a very
small group of the godsquad were anti choice. At the time they
were singing their Hail Mary's outside the abortion clinics.

So Gadget, the bad news for you is that your's and the pope's
opinion simply don't matter in Australia.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 14 May 2007 8:27:18 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
A politician pontificating for truth, in advertising of all things. Advertising lies in very intelligent, tricky ways. Its love of the half truth prolly defines its effectiveness.

Half truth is the bread and butter of politicians.

Ever since dem-destroyer wore that tight little t-shirt, pushing up the daisies, when she was touting for leadership of iconographic redudance, how can anyone take her seriously?
Posted by trade215, Monday, 14 May 2007 9:01:57 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
Runner” One has to be morally bankrupted not to see that killing the unborn is terribly wrong. “

And one has to be intellectually inept not to see that it is, clearly, a woman’s choice how her body will be used.

As for “Animals have more rights on this planet than unborn babies.”

An unborn baby should not have any right which detracts from or is to the detriment of the rights of the first inhabitant of the body on which it relies for all sustenance and resource (the Woman).

That a woman falls pregnant, due to any reason, is immaterial to her right to exercise all discretion over how her body will continue to be used.

God forbid we ever return to the days when the condition of pregnancy is enforced by decree of the state and people are no longer hold sovereignty over their own bodies.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 1:31:50 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
As a volunteer counsellor I have listened to hundreds of women in varying degrees of post-abortion distress. Their grief and guilt - which has often profoundly disabled them and wrecked their relationships - is not eased one bit by the ideologies which maintain abortion is some kind of liberation. Rather, its easy availability and its pretence of being a "health" service has given the partner, families and friends of the pregnant woman the excuse of absolving themselves of any responsibility and support towards her and her unborn child. But rather than try and appeal to people who are really uninterested in learning the truth about abortion and its effects, I would just like to say to any woman suffering after her abortion and who may be reading these postings, there is help for you - and it is non-judgemental and compassionate:
http://www.projectrachel.org.au/
The post-aborted women I have listened to never blame religion for their abortions. They blame themselves, their partners who have abandoned or bullied them into abortion and most of all, they blame themselves. Many went off to get abortions without a second thought and are bewildered by the force of its negative impact upon them.
Among the many horrendous risks of abortion listed by Planned Parenthood of Australia's informed consent form, are "depression, suicide". Unfortunately, women presenting for abotion don't seem to read these consent forms, or if they do, they don't believe it can happen to them.
Posted by Maryse Usher, Thursday, 17 May 2007 9:26:42 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
Maryse Usher I would contend that when a relationship decides its not stable enough to bring a baby into the world then the abortion follows. The abortion doesn't wreck the relationship, the abortion signals that the relationship is over and the relationship finishes shortly afterward.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 17 May 2007 11:16:39 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
Maryse Usher, “Among the many horrendous risks of abortion listed by Planned Parenthood of Australia's informed consent form, are "depression, suicide". Unfortunately, women presenting for abotion don't seem to read these consent forms, or if they do, they don't believe it can happen to them. “

We are all responsible for the decisions which we make, be they ones we have been bullied into or not.

I would think the outcome of a unwanted pregnancy, enforced to a natural conclusion, upon a woman against her will by either friends, family, religious counsel or the state, is the ultimate in abuse. It is far more likely to be the source of depression and suicide than the outcome of actions which come from peoples own choices.

I guess no one can protect others from coming to terms with accepting responsibility for their own actions.

When any religious zealot really knows what is best for any individual, more than the individual themselves, then we will all be living in eternal bliss and flying around with wings
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 17 May 2007 1:40:22 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
Col Rouge, you really display a remarkable ignorance, not just of what the abortion issue is all about, but also of the society you live in. We are all governed by laws whose primary purpose and effect is to restrict and control the way we behave in our everyday lives, and few people have any problem with that. Those laws are made by other human beings, and they have nothing to guide them in deciding what is a just law, except their perception of what is right or wrong. Why should baby killing be exempt? And why should the lawmaking process be placed in the hands of atheists, and Christians excluded simply because they have an identifiable set of moral values? The law which protects a newborn child, for example, does not, to paraphrase your comments, "enforce parenthood on a woman against her will, to a natural conclusion". It simply prevents her from murdering her child, whatever her personal problems or desires may be. There is no reason why the same legal protection should not apply to the same child before birth. The burden imposed on the woman is no different either way, and it is the same human destiny which is being protected. That is a totally rational view, and has nothing to do with religion, except for the fact that people with religious beliefs are more likely to understand the difference between right and wrong. But many people of no religious beliefs are able to recognise the barbarity of tearing small human beings apart, and to see through the pitifully feeble arguments dredged up in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The verbal garbage you churn out contributes nothing to what should be an intelligent debate. It is worth commenting that you are only able to do so because the pregnancy you "enforced" on your mother "until its natural conclusion" was not discarded with the contempt you hold for tomorrow's unborn bloggers.
Posted by Peter D, Friday, 18 May 2007 6:19:21 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
Peter D

The problem that religious zealots have is that they believe humans are the superior species - God's chosen race!

That's no doubt a major reason why humans are stuffing up the planet and eradicating other species to make way for their indecent, irresponsible population explosions.

I advise Peter D, there are many of us who do not accept we are superior - we are simply one species of thousands, therefore we endeavour to reduce our human footprint on Planet Earth.

Since your "God" chose to allow many female human species to reach puberty by the age of 10, thereby making her fertile, perhaps you may explain why your "God" failed to endow her with the appropriate emotional maturity and the essential funding to competently raise a child?

You may also explain why many religious zealots find 10 year old children attractive?

Hypothetically, would you insist your pregnant 10 year old daughter becomes a Mother? And if so, would you insist she raises her baby or simply abandon it by placing it for adoption?
Posted by dickie, Friday, 18 May 2007 8:50:37 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
Peter D “Col Rouge, you really display a remarkable ignorance, not just of what the abortion issue is all about, but also of the society you live in.”

Really, maybe you could justify your crass attitude.

“Those laws are made by other human beings, and they have nothing to guide them in deciding what is a just law,”

Not right, seems you are “ignorant” in the process of law making.
As a voter I elect a representative to pass laws on my behalf and among those laws, about 30 years or so ago the laws, which had been in existence for about 120 years, which made abortion a criminal offence, were repealed.

“And why should the lawmaking process be placed in the hands of atheists, and Christians excluded simply because they have an identifiable set of moral values?”

Well we are back to the will of the democratic majority. If you have a problem with that you should write to your member of parliament because writing to the undemocratically appointed Pope will make no difference (only a minority of people listen to him).

On a point of interest, abortion is not about a new born child. We are talking about a pre-born embryo. Birth is an important point in the development cycle.

It is the point at which we acknowledge the individual and separation from the mother. A small point, we have “birth certificates”, we do not have “conception certificates”.

Your claim that the protections afforded a separate individual should apply to an embryo. Embryos are entirely dependent upon the bodily resources of a particular individual. A new born can be cared for by anyone (within reason) typically, should a woman die in child birth and the baby survives. The same is not true of a woman who dies before the birth, the embryo generally dies with her (dependency).

“The verbal garbage you churn out”.

That you cannot deal with being in the minority is your problem, maybe it is due to your tiny, limited intellect. Does the D stand for “Dullard”?

You fail to sway the debate.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 19 May 2007 8:36:39 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
Dickie,
Your prolific output of verbal garbage makes Col Rouge appear like a literary genius. If you really believe the human species (it is not clear whether you regard yourself as a member) is in no way superior to other life forms on earth, it goes a long way to explaining your view of life. It requires an extremely low self-image to claim the same status as a pig, a rodent or a cockroach - perhaps you're still working on the finer detail. It is a telling admission, nevertheless, that you see abortion as an attack on the whole of humanity, because that is exactly what pro-life people have been saying for years. Pro-abortionists have always equated the unwanted pregnancy with the unwanted child, but lack the courage to call for legalised infanticide. There is no rational basis for making a distinction. Same life, same destiny snatched away.
You say that "religious zealots" believe that humans are the superior species - what nonsense. I suggest virtually the whole of humanity believes it. Those who claim otherwise are the deluded minority. As for the rather silly questions you direct at me - answer them yourself. They have no relevance to the deliberate killing of the defenceless unborn.
Posted by Peter D, Saturday, 19 May 2007 9:14:51 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
So, you have reading problems, too, Col Rouge? Read what I said.
Posted by Peter D, Saturday, 19 May 2007 9:24:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ouch!! I wonder what the "D" stands for in Peter?
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 19 May 2007 10:09:54 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
Peter D,” So, you have reading problems, too, Col Rouge? Read what I said.”

I have no reading problems. You have an attitude problem.

You seem to be good at throwing around the rhetoric. I assume it is due to one of the following

Immaturity

Retardation

Pretentious arrogance of someone crippled with “little man” syndrome.

Either way your posts are just the ravings of the fanatic out classed when faced with reason and logic.

Feel free to challenge the points I have made; instead of deploying your amateur attempts at insult.

You should be aware, debating is sometimes called a “battle of wits”.

I suggest, for your own credibility in future, you do not forget your weaponry for battle.

At the moment you look more like the catering corp, armed with the wit and cutting edge of a lump of lard.

Now run away, have a little weep, maybe bite and punch the pillow, then come back with some real argument.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 20 May 2007 6:18:51 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
Sorry, Col Rouge. Wrong on every count. You wrote that looking in the mirror. But don't forget to thank your mother for not aborting you.
Posted by Peter D, Sunday, 20 May 2007 10:34:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter D” Sorry, Col Rouge. Wrong on every count. You wrote that looking in the mirror. But don't forget to thank your mother for not aborting you.”

I would observe that despite being directly invited to challenge my reasoning, (“Feel free to challenge the points I have made), you decline and simply toy with your churlish asides.

Obviously, what faith you have in your own beliefs is so weak you lack the courage to defend them as a basis for reasoned debate.

Oh, I am pretty sure “little man syndrome” is right on the money.

Unable to control those around you, you fall back on righteous indignation. I am pleased your mother did not abort you either, you are a living reminder of how not to be.

I choose and stand proudly with my belief that everyone is a sovereign individual with first and sole right to choose the deployment of their own bodies. That some ladies will pursue abortions is sad. However, far sadder would be the situation where their right of free choice was subverted to the will of people like Peter D, who comes here to make demands and criticise others, without being able to defend his own position.

Peter D, your posturing, like your attitude, stinks and your arguments are, obviously undefendable (based on your inability/reluctance to defend them).

At least my mother would be proud of me for knowing my mind and defending my views and stated position. I wonder what excuses your mother would be making up for you?
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 21 May 2007 7:21:37 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
More verbal garbage, Col.
Posted by Peter D, Monday, 21 May 2007 9:32:08 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
Peter D “More verbal garbage, Col. “

And yet you present us with another wasted opportunity to defend your argument.

Obviously you hold no faith in your ability to produce reasoned argument and you are left posturing like a dullard.

What you have posted proves you are incapable of reasoned debate which leaves everyone to conclude you are as good at debating as 70 kilos of catering corp lard.

Have a nice day. Stay out of the sun or you might have a melt down and run off into the gutter (no great loss).
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 22 May 2007 9:31:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you murder a pregnant woman, aren't there increased penalties for taking two lives?
Posted by Steel, Saturday, 26 May 2007 1:41:46 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
Steel, no he wouldn't. If a man kicked a pregnant woman in the stomach and caused an abortion of a much wanted child (by the woman), he would only be up for assault of the woman. A foetus does not have the same rights before the law as a person after birth.

The above scenario is unfortunately a way a few men have managed to get out of becoming financially responsible for an unwanted child. Furious a woman didn't choose abortion.

If you were drunk and caused an accident involving a pregnant woman, you would't have to worry about manslaughter charges as long as the woman doesn't die.

Only women who have a termination of a pregnancy are freely slandered with murder by some.
Posted by yvonne, Saturday, 26 May 2007 5:43:11 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
This whole abortion thing is just plain stupid. I'm still at school, and I know a few people who have been forced to finish school because of having a child. Some of them had it because they wanted to, but one was raped, and was then made pregnant. How can you bring in a child into this world with it not knowing it's father, and when you then start a family, making it the odd one out? It's just plain cruel. If anyone hasn't noticed, it's mostly males saying women shouldn't have a choice and abortion is wrong. Excuse me, do you know what it feels like to squeeze a watermelon through your genitals? It's not the most pleasant thing i can assure you. I do agree that if a woman becomes pregnant, then she should think long and hard about it, but it should NEVER be anyone else's choice but hers what to do with it. It's her body which is gonna be put under a hell of a lot of stress, she'll end up looking after it. If they say Australia is a non-sexist country, everyone is equal, then those males who say women don't get a choice in what should happen. Remember folks: if women decided to stop having children all together because its to risky, then the poplulation is gonna die. We got the power to decide that, so it's OUR decision whether to abort or not.
Posted by ellie, Sunday, 27 May 2007 1:15:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was listening to a radio program about abortion at the same time Ellie was posting.

The female's view was that when a disabled baby is born into a family without the financial and emotional resources to rear that baby then life is very painful for all involved. Babies and children that are institutionalised live a very deprived life.

The male said that if we terminated disabled people then Stephen Hawking the renowned physicist would never have lived because he was born with cerebral palsy, as it was he received a first class education and has gone on to be the pre-emininent physicist of his age.

Therein lies the crux of the debate. Stephen Hawking, according to his TV biography, was not born with cerebral palsy, he as a genetic debilitating condition that first attacked him on the night he met his wife after he had finished his undergraduate degree at Cambridge. he was a normal person who could kick a football until he was 21.

I have also seen Rosemary the woman with cerebral palsy who attained a HSC certificate. Rosemary and her devoted carer Ann were out to dinner in a restaurant. Rosemary sat in her chair and didn't eat. A health professional familiar with Rosemary said that Rosemary was so badly afflicted that she has never had a swallow reflex so her food is put in her mouth and some one has to massage hr throat to mimic the action of peristalsis.
Posted by billie, Sunday, 27 May 2007 11:02:57 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
Pro life organizations are also opposed to contraception, sex education, condoms for AIDS prevention, the HPV vaccine, childcare and even women's education: http://www.abortion.org.au/prolifeagenda.htm
Posted by Maryan, Sunday, 9 September 2007 4:58:49 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. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

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